[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H396-H419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2012
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3582.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 534 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3582.
{time} 1405
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide
for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, with Mr. Dold
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying but it unfortunately bears
repeating, our budget process is broken.
Last year, the Senate didn't pass the budget. The year before that,
the Senate didn't pass the budget. This year, they may not pass one
again. The greatest threat to our economy now and our children's future
is a fiscal threat, a debt threat, and yet we are on an unsustainable
path; and one of the reasons, after the lack of political will among
our colleagues, is the budget process. It has not been reformed
substantially since 1974. As a result, many Members of this body have
put years and hours of effort into fixing this broken process.
I want to say Mr. Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, and Mr.
Hensarling, our conference chairman, in particular have been two
individuals who have put so much work into this. As a result, 10 bills
are coming out of the Budget Committee. Ten members of the Budget
Committee are putting together an effort to fix this broken Federal
budget process to bring more accountability, more transparency, and
better results so that we can fix this problem.
This bill is authored by Dr. Price of Georgia, which simply says,
while we consider large fiscal pieces of legislation, let's have the
CBO add an analysis so we know what it does to the economy. That's not
a lot to ask. A lot is happening, and we want to make sure that, as we
judge large fiscal legislation, that we have the kind of an analysis we
need to better judge what it does for our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the author of this
bill, Mr. Price.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will be recognized.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1410
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me start by saying to the chairman of the Budget Committee and
all of the members of the Budget Committee that we appreciated the
dialogue that we've had on the budget reform bills. There is one bill
that I understand we'll take up next week where at least the chairman
of the committee and myself were able to find some bipartisan
consensus. That's the expedited procedure, legislative line item veto
bill where you've got some Democrats and Republicans in favor of it,
and some Democrats and Republicans against it.
But with respect to the two bills before us today, Mr. Chairman, I'm
afraid they fall far short. In fact, I think they would take us in the
wrong direction.
First of all, just to be clear, because we'll probably hear a lot of
talk today
[[Page H397]]
about the importance of moving the economy forward and jobs: Neither of
these bills will do one thing, not one thing to help get our economy
moving again. They won't do one thing to create and help create jobs in
this country.
Now, with respect to this particular piece of legislation that we're
dealing with now, which actually is a step toward requiring some kind
of dynamic scoring by CBO and the Joint Tax Committee, it's very
misleading. Here's the concern. If you look at the current House rules,
current House rules already require that we have an economic analysis
for major tax legislation.
What this particular piece of legislation does is say, yeah, we're
going to ask for an economic analysis, but it tilts the playing field
in favor of one kind of fiscal action. So, for example, it says we're
going to consider whether or not tax policy affects the economy. But
when it comes to major investments, for example, infrastructure,
transportation, investments that we all know have historically helped
this country grow, whether it was the highway system, whether it's been
investments in other major infrastructure around this country, they've
all had major economic growth benefits, but those are specifically
excluded to the extent that they're involved in the appropriations
process. So we're looking at only one-half of the equation, revenues,
not important investments, at least to the extent that they go through
the appropriations process.
Now, a word on the revenue piece. What's very curious is the way this
bill is drafted. We would not get an economic analysis on one of the
most consequential tax changes this body could take in the remaining
year. We all know that we face the question of what to do with the
expiring tax cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, both on middle-income
Americans, but also the tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the
folks at the very top, the top 2 percent.
Now, under current House rules, we get an analysis of any legislation
that was designed to extend those tax cuts going forward. But the way
this is designed, the statute, we're going to get an answer that says
well, we're already assuming the tax cuts for the folks at the very top
are going to go on forever. Now, the reason that's very curious is that
the Congressional Budget Office has in fact already done analyses in
the past of what might happen if we were to extend the tax cuts for the
folks at the very top.
And if you look at their analyses, and they did one in September of
2010, you'll find at the end of the 10-year period, they find that
those tax cuts will slow down economic growth. Why would that be?
Because those tax cuts add to the deficit. That deficit crowds out
private investment. That creates a drag on the economy. We had a
similar conclusion from testimony that was given by the Joint Tax
Committee in September of 2011, just last September. The same
conclusion. At the end of the 10-year period, you'd actually have a
slowdown in economic growth.
So it's a little perplexing to find out why we're drafting something
that would not require a study of one of the most consequential
decisions that this Congress might make.
And so for those reasons, Mr. Chairman--one, that we're not even
counting the investment side of the equation with respect to the
consequences for economic growth, and number two, the fact that this
isn't even going to trigger an analysis of one of the biggest revenue
decisions this body will make--we have to oppose the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee,
Congressman Ryan, who has put in an incredible amount of work, diligent
work and commitment, in reforming our broken budget process. He and the
entire committee staff have worked tirelessly to bring about more
accountability and transparency to this process. I thank them for that.
In fact, all Americans should thank them.
Budget reforms would also not be in the spotlight were it not for the
work of a number of Members, but there's one Member I would like to
acknowledge specifically, and that's our conference chairman, Jeb
Hensarling, who has been steadfast for many years championing the
Family Budget Protection Act of 2007 and the Spending Deficit and Debt
Control Act of 2009 that focused on reforming our broken budget
process.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that our number one priority in
this body must be enacting policies that help our economy create jobs.
It is clear that the President's policies have failed and they are
making the economy worse. Because the President clearly can't run on
his record, he has denigrated into the process of division and envy
politics in this country. Terribly distressing.
House Republicans have a plan. We have got a jobs plan. It is a plan
to put the American people back to work, and so we are delighted to be
able to have an opportunity today to talk about one part of that plan.
The economy is growing way too slowly, as you well know. Not nearly
enough jobs are being created, which is one of the reasons that we
introduced H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which as my
colleague said, could be titled the dynamic scoring act.
As you well know, the current model for the CBO determines the cost
of legislative proposals by a static method that doesn't take into
account macroeconomic factors like increasing revenue, reducing the
deficit, paying down the debt, things that have economic consequences
in our society.
Economists from across the political spectrum agree that major
legislation considered by Congress has significant effects on economic
growth, and we ought to be looking at that consequence. While current
law requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide Congress with
information on the fiscal impact of all legislation that is reported
from the committee, there is no requirement for analysis of the
economic impact. This bill remedies that issue by requiring the
Congressional Budget Office to provide macroeconomic analysis for all
bills that have a budgetary impact--this is the threshold--a budgetary
impact of more than 0.25 percent of the gross domestic product. That
equals, Mr. Chairman, about $39 billion in 2012.
This does not change the traditional CBO static scoring method at
all. This analysis will be in addition to current law. It gives Members
of Congress more information around which they are able to then make
appropriate decisions.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that current policy is what
has been utilized as a baseline for the administration, for the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, for Domenici-Rivlin. All of those used
current policy. This notion that we ought not be using current policy
as a baseline is simply folly.
In 2011, only six bills met the 0.25 percent GDP threshold, which
means that the CBO ought not be overworked by having this opportunity
to provide greater information to Members of Congress.
Everybody knows that CBO scores in the past have been significantly
inaccurate. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 is but one example.
The CBO estimated that that would cost about $206 billion. In fact, it
was $124 billion. Mr. Chairman, that is a huge difference.
Past CBO macroeconomic work has shown that Federal deficits and tax
rates do, in fact, impact the economy. CBO itself has said:
``The reduction in Federal borrowing that would result from smaller
deficits would induce greater national saving and investment and
thereby increase output and income.''
Mr. Chairman, more information from CBO will highlight the need to
act positively on fiscal policy here in Congress. And maybe as
importantly, this bill will also encourage pro-growth policy ideas from
all of our colleagues that will help get our economy back on track,
create jobs, and protect hardworking taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
At the outset of his remarks, Mr. Price referenced the economy and
the President's plan. I think it is important to remember that when the
President came before this body for the first
[[Page H398]]
State of the Union address, the economy was in absolute free fall. In
fact, we now know it was even worse than people realized at the time.
We were losing GDP at a rate of more than 7 percent.
{time} 1420
We were losing over 800,000 jobs in this country every month. And as
a result of the passage of the recovery bill, the Congressional Budget
Office, the same nonpartisan, independent office that this bill is
asking for a report from, has told Congress that because of the
recovery bill, we saved or created up to 3 million jobs in 2010. Those
are the facts reported by the Congressional Budget Office, that we
helped reduce unemployment in this country in 2011 by over 1.4 percent.
When you're headed down fast, you've got to stop the slide, pick
yourself up and begin to climb back up. And that's what the President
and the earlier Congress did together.
Now, are we where we want to be? Of course not. That's why it's
important that we begin to move forward on the jobs plan the President
asked this Congress to take up last September, major new investment in
infrastructure, stuff that will really help move the economy. We
haven't voted on that. I hope we'll move forward on the payroll tax cut
extension for 160 million Americans. We should do that quickly.
So let's remember that this economy was in tatters. It has at least
gotten a little bit back up on its feet, but we have a whole, long way
to go still. Unfortunately, this bill today won't do one thing--not a
thing--to help it.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, and I just want to say at the outset
what a pleasure it is to work with the chairman, the ranking member,
and the members of the Budget Committee who, I believe, are sincerely
committed to try to help deal with the deficit situation.
But what I find rather baffling, I'll have to admit, is that my
colleagues in the majority continue to turn a blind eye to the power of
investing so that we can create a major dynamic economy in human
capital and in our infrastructure. Their only interest, almost to the
point of a fetish, is to favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of
growing our economy. And this Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 3582, is
just yet another example of that, Mr. Chairman.
This legislation would allow Republicans to really understate the
effect of tax cuts on the deficit--hiding their impact, masking their
real cost, and paving the way for extensions and new tax policies that
favor tax cuts only. I mean, Republicans are trying to carve--I have to
admire their persistence--they want to carve in supply-side economics
and ``trickle down,'' no matter how long it's failed, into our body
politic forever. As my dad used to say, money doesn't grow on trees.
And this is the ``money grows on trees strategy.''
I'm sorry, but my colleagues have such a strong bias against any
investments that are not tax cuts; and it shows a lack of interest in
the investments, I believe, that really have the power to dig us out of
this hole we're in, investments like early childhood education. Why
don't we do dynamic scoring on that? Health care, what about scoring
the impact of what providing health care would do in terms of
decreasing the costs to our companies?
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
Ms. MOORE. I hear from all walks of life that a transportation
budget, reauthorizing the transportation budget, would be such a boon
to our economy, training people for the 21st-century skills. But yet
here's another backdoor approach to include the Bush-era tax cuts into
the baseline, and we already know that that's $4 trillion worth of
debt.
By only allowing for the dynamic effects of tax cuts--not the effect
of investments in a better way of life for us all--the Republicans are
showing their true colors again.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our conference chairman.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him and I
thank our Budget Committee chairman for their kind words and their
great leadership for fiscal responsibility and job growth.
Mr. Chairman, indeed, on Monday, the American people were reminded,
yet again, that this President's policies have failed. It was on Monday
when the Congressional Budget Office announced that this President is
on track to be the first President in American history to produce
trillion-dollar deficits every single year that he's in office. Part of
what has created these trillion-dollar deficits is the failed stimulus
program, which my friends on the other side of the aisle still tout.
The gentleman from Georgia is right: because the President can't run
for reelection on his failed policies, he has, unfortunately, resorted
to the politics of division and envy. But, Mr. Chairman, the American
public isn't interested in a division; they're not interested in envy.
They are interested in jobs. And in that respect, this President hasn't
just failed; he has made our economy worse.
Almost 2 million more Americans have lost their jobs under this
President's policies. We have the longest sustained period of high
unemployment since the Great Depression. One in seven are on food
stamps. That's the reason, Mr. Chairman, that House Republicans have a
plan for America's job creators. Yesterday, we passed a bill trying to
repeal a part of the job-killing health care plan of the President.
Well, today is a very modest step. It says, do you know what, before
we pass another plan like the President's health care plan, wouldn't it
be nice to get that report from CBO that estimated another million of
our fellow countrymen might just lose their jobs. Shouldn't we empower
Members of Congress with more information? Let's get the jobs that the
American people so richly need and deserve. Let's empower Members of
Congress to know how these pieces of legislation are going to impact
jobs and economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, we must pass the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope if our Republican colleagues are
going to keep asking CBO for these reports that they'll read those
reports, because if you read the CBO's analysis of the impact of the
Recovery Act, they've been very clear that in the year 2010, it helped
save or create up to 3 million jobs. That's what CBO says. It also says
in the year 2011, it helped reduce unemployment by over 1.4 percent.
That's what the Congressional Budget Office says.
Now we're asking the Congressional Budget Office for a study here. I
think we should take into account in some of our comments their
findings that they've already delivered to us. With respect to the
situation the President inherited, again, the economy was in total free
fall.
Yes, it's kind of like when you're trying to run up an escalator
that's going down really fast. When you first get on, you're going to
go down until you stop it, until you stop it, and then you take action
to try to run. You're trying to run in place through the actions you're
taking. First you don't feel like you're moving up, but we're finally
moving up.
The President inherited an economy like an escalator going down very
fast. And we passed a recovery bill. It stopped the free fall and
stabilized the economy. We need to take more steps; and I wish our
colleagues, Republican colleagues, would bring to the floor some of the
bills that will help it. But let's just remember that for the last 22
months, we've actually created up to 3 million jobs, in fact, over 3
million jobs in the economy. Are we where we want to be? No. But let's
not go back. Let's not go back to the same policies that got us into
this same mess to begin with.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price) who has been very focused on budget issues for a long time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and want to note that today we could be debating a jobs
package. We could be debating a comprehensive effort to balance our
budget. But instead, we're focusing on a bill to enshrine failed
``trickle-down'' policies in our already flawed budget process.
[[Page H399]]
Now, let's be clear: this bill is designed to make it easier to pass
large tax cuts without having to find real savings in our current
budget. It relies on the thoroughly discredited notion that tax cuts do
not add to the deficit, that they magically pay for themselves.
This is the height of fiscal recklessness and exemplifies the old
adage that ``insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results.''
After all, Congress experimented with this approach when it passed
the Reagan tax cuts and again with the George W. Bush tax cuts.
{time} 1430
And the results were soaring deficits. We now find ourselves in
crippling debt, unable to pay for needed investments in our crumbling
infrastructure, unable to pay for the education and retraining required
to maintain American competitiveness in the ever changing global
economy.
So I'll vote ``no'' on this tried and failed approach. And I ask
colleagues to return to the pay-as-you-go rules that helped lead us to
the balanced budgets and the economic prosperity of the 1990s.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It's curious to listen to my colleague talk
about his concern about the debt when, in the last 4 years, the 4 years
of this administration, we have the first 4 years in the history of
this country where our debt has been greater than $1 trillion--over $5
trillion built up in debt by this administration.
I also want to point out to my friend from Maryland, who talks about
the wonderful impact of the stimulus bill and how it has created all
sorts of jobs and increased GDP, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, as our
Members and colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office
periodically updates the information that they provide as it relates to
the estimates about what has occurred in the economy from policy here
in Washington. The most recent update shows an 8 percent increase in
the real GDP growth from the stimulus bill--now, that's down from 1.7
percent growth, and that is down from their estimate before--and a .4
percent reduction in the unemployment rate, which is down from a .8
percent reduction in the unemployment rate.
So, Mr. Chairman, if we wait another quarter or two, we're going to
see that, in fact, the real information is out, and that is that the
stimulus bill had no effect or a detrimental effect on the economy.
With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Georgia, Dr. Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely critical that
lawmakers in Washington are informed and aware of how legislation that
we introduce will impact our country's economic growth, so today I rise
in strong support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which will basically
give us that information.
If this legislation had already been passed, perhaps our economy
wouldn't be saddled with the effects of the President's health care
takeover, the stimulus bill, and other legislative nightmares all
produced by my Democrat colleagues. These only tie up our small
businesses, bog down our job creators, and further bury our economy in
massive Federal debt.
If we had any idea of how chilling the effects of these bills would
be on jobs and our economy, maybe we would have done the smart thing,
which would have been not to pass them and instead stayed within the
boundaries of our budget. Except, well, I forgot. We still don't have a
budget, thanks to the obstruction of Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
That's why I introduced my Budget or Bust Act just today. It would
literally force the House and the Senate to pass a budget or else their
salaries would be held hostage until Congress does its job. My bill
would also restore the power of the purse to its rightful owner, which
our Founding Fathers specifically gave to Congress, not to the
President.
I urge my colleagues to support both the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act and
my Budget or Bust Act so that we can truly understand how our
legislation affects the economy, and so that Washington is finally
forced to live within its means and Congress is held responsible and
accountable, as hardworking taxpayers deserve.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the Member for yielding.
The simple question now before us is whether it's better for Congress
to have more information or less information when it's deliberating on
matters that directly affect the economy of our Nation. You'd think the
answer would be self-evident, but apparently some Members of this House
prefer blissful ignorance rather than going to all of the fuss and
bother of actually assessing the full ramifications of the policies
that they are enacting. That explains a lot about some of the decisions
they've made around here in recent years.
The economy is a dynamic and fast changing thing, responding rapidly
to every tax and regulation imposed by government and every dollar that
changes hands in markets. Yet the rules under which the Congressional
Budget Office operates severely constrain its ability to take this
obvious reality into account in the information that it provides us.
This measure doesn't presume to tell the CBO how to do its job or
what formula to use in its analysis. It doesn't even change the
outmoded static modeling it uses to score the fiscal impact of measures
coming before us. All that it says is: Give us the complete picture. If
a proposal is going to affect the economy significantly, for good or
ill, tell us, tell us what you think and show us why you think so.
I think Patrick Henry summed up this bill perfectly when he said,
``For my part, no matter what anguish of spirit it may cost, I am
willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for
it.''
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. McClintock that more
information is helpful. We just don't want to ask for the information
in a way that we only get one side of the story.
I hope our colleagues are going to vote for the amendment a little
later on the floor that says we should also try and figure out what the
economic impact of major investments in infrastructure is through the
appropriations process. They've removed that analysis from this bill.
In addition to the fact, it's very curious that when it comes to tax
policy, they've written this in a way that when CBO does an analysis
of, again, the major decision that would be made by this body in the
next few years, whether or not to extend some or all of the 2001/2003
tax cuts, that will show no impact on economic growth because of the
way they've written this legislation, when, in fact, we know, at least
from earlier CBO reports, that in the out-years, 10 years out, it will
actually be a drag on economic growth because it will increase the
deficit when you allow the tax cuts for the folks at the top to go on
and on and on.
So, yes, we want more information. Let's just not ask CBO for
information that is designed to only extract one side of the story.
And, unfortunately, that's what the bill does in its current form.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm a bit amused, Mr. Chairman, by the tack
that the other side is taking on this as they talk about gaming the
system, if you will, with this piece of legislation. I would simply
call my colleague's attention to the bill itself.
The definition of macroeconomic impact analysis in the bill simply
states:
Estimate of changes of economic output, employment, capital stock,
tax revenue, an estimate of revenue feedback expected as a result of
the enactment of a proposal and the critical assumptions for how they
got there.
There isn't any qualitative assessment assigned to this. It's simply,
give us more information, as the gentleman from California said.
So it's a bit perplexing why, again, our colleagues on the other side
don't want that additional information with which to make decisions,
high-quality decisions here in Washington.
With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Flores).
[[Page H400]]
Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, although the Obama administration may tout signs that
the economy is improving, we are still way below past economic
recoveries. The reality is the economy is growing too slowly and not
creating enough jobs.
Economists agree that legislation considered by Congress can have
significant impacts on economic growth, both positive and negative. In
fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported this week that we are on
track to have our fourth $1 trillion deficit in a row, despite
President Obama's earlier campaign promise to cut the deficit in half
by the end of his first term. At such a critical time, we should ensure
that all lawmakers have as much information as possible about the
effects of proposed legislation on economic growth and job creation.
The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 would require CBO to provide
lawmakers with a macroeconomic impact analysis for all major
legislation reported by a House or Senate committee. The economic
analysis would describe the potential economic impact of all major
bills or major economic variables, including real gross domestic
product, business investment, capital stock, employment, and labor. It
would also describe the potential fiscal impacts of the bill, including
any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes
in gross domestic product.
{time} 1440
If the last Congress had had this type of real-world economic
analysis, it would have never passed the job-killing Democrat takeover
of our Nation's health care system in 2010.
In addition, if the last Democratic-led Congress would have known
this information when it passed its $800 billion stimulus bill, it
would have known that the elusive millions of jobs that it claimed to
create were going to cost about $400,000 per job. This $400,000 is
about the same amount as the total salaries of seven middle class
Americans.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Pro-Growth
Budgeting Act of 2012, so that we may promote pro-growth policies that
will help get our economy back on track, reduce the deficit, and
protect hardworking taxpayers.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I go back to the fact that you're asking CBO to only give one
side of the story, and I would just refer Mr. Price, my friend,
colleague, to page 3 of the bill, lines 12 through 16, where you say,
the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable,
prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any committee of
the House of Representatives or Senate, in parentheses, except the
Committee on Appropriations of each House.
I go back to the fact that every American knows that when we invest
in our infrastructure, when the companies invest in their plants and
equipment, when we invest in our roads and our bridges and our
highways, that can have a positive economic impact. In fact, if this
House of Representatives were to take up the President's jobs bill,
which he asked us to pass in September, that would invest more in our
infrastructure, that would help the economy.
Of course, you wouldn't want to know, apparently, about the positive
impact on the economy of the President's jobs bill because that
involves investment through the transportation process. So, it does
tilt the field in a significant way when it comes to decisions we make
here with resources.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my
colleague on the Budget Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. This bill, like most that come out here from the
Republicans, has a great name. It's a Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It's
not a pro-growth budget--big difference--but a Pro-Growth Budgeting
Act. And like so many of the pieces of legislation that they offer us,
the substance of the bill does exactly the opposite of the title.
This would better be named the ``Dig Deeper Now'' legislation, or the
``Mandate Voodoo Economics'' legislation. It attempts to enshrine
Republican dogma that even an elementary arithmetic student would have
some question about. It's based on the theology that the best way to
get more is to do less; that if you have less revenue coming in, you
somehow will eventually get more revenue coming in. And it just hasn't
worked that way.
Their approach is much like the alchemist of old, who, when faced
with a problem that he could not convert straw into gold, simply
responds, give me more straw. They can't get enough straw in the form
of tax cuts to talk about at their political conventions. But when they
apply them, we don't need dynamic scoring to know what the effect is.
We have history, and that history is not very favorable to this whole
concept that somehow less means more.
We have the ``dynamic'' Bush tax cuts to look at and what their
effect has been. And the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the
effect has been they cost $1 trillion, $1 trillion toward the budget
deficit that we have, and if we extend the Bush tax cuts for those at
the very top, again, it will cost another trillion dollars. That's
trillion with a ``t'' in both cases, and it is a big impact in digging
us into the hole that we're in, that we're trying to work our way out
of with what should be a Pro-Growth Budget Act, a jobs act, instead of
something that is a name that bears no resemblance to the substance of
the bill.
How about the experience with economic growth? What American would
not like to have the economic growth of the Clinton years, when the tax
rates were actually higher than the experience of the Bush years, where
the tax rates may have been lower, but so was the economic growth,
almost 4 percent a year under President Clinton, and down to about 2
percent under President Bush from 2001 to 2008.
Likewise, with job growth, dynamic job growth under President
Clinton, job losses under President Bush. That's the history, the
experience that we have with this theory, this ideology that somehow
less revenue means more revenue.
Only yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we heard the testimony of
the Congressional Budget Office, objective testimony, that if we
extend----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. We heard objective testimony that if we extend all of
the Bush tax cuts for the next decade, we will have less economic
growth in this country, not more economic growth, as their theology
maintains. And the testimony we're hearing is not limited to Democratic
witnesses. Even the Republican witnesses who have come before our
committees in the past have conceded that these Bush tax cuts did not
pay for themselves.
We've seen the result of voodoo economics. We've seen the results of
supply side and trickle down. It's time to take a more dynamic approach
for the American economy, and that's a jobs bill that will meet the
needs of working families across this country instead of playing games
with the numbers and trying to show that the impossible is reality.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it's kind of like ``Alice in Wonderland'' actually. I
mean, if the gentleman truly wants to have the information that he is
demanding, then he ought to be supporting the bill because what he's
talking about is dynamism in the economy, and that's what we ought to
be looking at, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we need the information to be
able to provide us with the kind of data that will allow us to make the
best decisions.
For example, this is a chart that shows the employment in this
country, and the tax reductions of the last decade demonstrate that
employment goes up and unemployment comes down. And then when the
stimulus bill that the other side amazingly still wants to tout as the
be all and the end all, when it's passed, what happens, Mr. Chairman?
Employment plummets. Unemployment skyrockets.
So the gentleman can go back to the nineties, yes, but what we're
living in right now is 2012, and the policies aren't working. So what
we need to do is be able to provide, hopefully, Members of Congress
with more information so they're able to make wiser decisions.
[[Page H401]]
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth
Budgeting Act. Just yesterday, the Budget Committee had the opportunity
to question the CBO Director about the impact of the President's
stimulus on the economy. A few months earlier, his office and mine had
a very public debate about the impact of government spending on the
economy. When asked to identify a single program, one single program
that positively impacted the economy, the CBO could not identify one
program.
Then, during the Budget Committee hearing, I asked the Director, is
it fair to say that the massive spending of 2009 did not benefit the
economy? He said, and I quote: ``The extra government spending from the
Recovery Act in 2009 boosted the economy in the short term, but we
believe, unless there are offsetting changes, the economy will be worse
off.'' From the CBO.
Legislation like the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will require the CBO to
undertake a full analysis of every major legislation, including impacts
on the employment and labor supply. Had the previous Congress been able
to review the long-term impacts and consequences of a $1 trillion
stimulus boondoggle, perhaps our economy would be better off today.
Perhaps the more than 20 million Americans--that's right, 20 million
Americans--who are unemployed or underemployed would actually have a
job.
Those who care solely about the short-term concern themselves with
political gain at the expense of the future. Today I ask my colleagues
to support this legislation because they care about the long term,
about the next generation, even if it means their short-term political
gains cannot be realized.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the gentleman raised the question of the long
term, and it begs the question about why this bill is written in a way
such that we would not be requiring an economic analysis of the major
change of law that we may be making with respect to tax policy, which
would be to extend the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, all or some of them.
{time} 1450
Let's talk about the long term because, in fact, the Joint Committee
on Taxation which, of course, is the entity that does the tax analysis
for the Congressional Budget Office, has said that at the end of that
10-year period, extending those tax cuts actually slows down the
economy--page 6 of the testimony of the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation before the House Committee on Ways and Means, September 21,
2011.
What they point out is that at the end of the 10-year period, you're
losing GDP growth. Again, why? Because if you have big tax cuts that
are financed by borrowing, as the Republican rules of the House were
changed to allow, Hey, we can provide tax cuts for folks at the very
top, put it on the credit card, no more pay-as-you-go, that increases
the deficit. You increase the deficit, as the economy begins to
recover, that's when it really begins to crowd out private investment.
So those tax cuts begin to slow down the economy in the end of the
10-year period, and they're not an efficient use--especially the tax
breaks for the folks at the top 2 percent--it's not an efficient means
to getting the economy moving again.
We saw in the 1990s under President Clinton we had a higher top
marginal tax rate: 20 million jobs were created, booming economic
times.
So I'm glad the previous gentlemen raised the issue of the long term.
Again, we're all a little perplexed about why this bill is written in a
way that the major change in law that we could make either this year or
next year with respect to the full or partial extension of the tax cuts
wouldn't even trigger this economic analysis. That is astounding.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point
out the CBO Director, indeed, did say the long-term effects of the
stimulus are actually depressing, potentially depressing, on the
economy. So that's why we need the big picture. That's why we need a
dynamic scoring model, an opportunity to look at the macroeconomic
impact of legislation that's considered in this Congress in a
responsible way.
I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs.
Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth
Budgeting Act of 2012.
This would require the CBO to provide lawmakers with macroeconomic
impact analysis for major legislation defined by budgetary impact
greater than 0.25 percent of annual GDP. Pretty simple.
Current law already requires CBO to provide Congress with the fiscal
impact. This bill would require the CBO to give us the economic impact.
Now, included in the analysis would be a statement of critical
assumptions and also sources of data underlying its estimate, which
would provide for maximum transparency.
So if there were questions, we would have the information in front of
us so that we could ask additional questions and be sure that we had
all of the information in order to make an informed decision.
This is just another tool in our toolkit, and this will help Congress
create policy that affects our economy while creating a pro-job agenda,
which is on all of our minds and should be our priority. The more
information available to policymakers, the better decisions.
There is no panacea in the budget process, but this is one more step
in reforming what is a broken process; and we're going to see more
information and more bills in the next several weeks talking about this
broken process. But this is one more piece to give us one more piece of
information.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I just have to emphasize again, I
already read from the portion of the bill that says we want economic
analyses of major pieces of legislation except from the Committee on
Appropriations. Again, transportation and infrastructure investments
over the history of our country have provided important economic
growth.
The President asked this Congress to take up his infrastructure
investment jobs bill last September. Congress hasn't taken it up, and
now apparently we don't want to include in the study the positive
economic impact that something like that would have.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. What time remains, if I may ask?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 10 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman,
as he well knows, that current law, section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of '74, requires that CBO produce cost estimates of
legislation reported out of every committee except the Committee on
Appropriations. To believe that a 1-year appropriations bill could have
a CBO assessment of the economic impact 40 years out, which is their
appropriate and usual window, it is just nonsensical. So current law
simply states that CBO looks at committee action and not appropriations
and for good reason.
I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank my friend from Georgia
for yielding. I just want to tell him how proud I am of him for
bringing this legislation forward. I know he doesn't need my accolades;
but this is the kind of commonsense material that I ran on and that, as
a freshman in this body, makes me proud to be able to vote on.
I brought a copy of the legislation with me, Mr. Chairman. I think if
you ask folks across the country, they sometimes wonder whether or not
we read this legislation.
If folks go to www.thomas.gov, they can actually read the legislation
themselves, Mr. Chairman. These things that we're arguing about, they
wonder what the truth is. It's only five pages long in its substance.
Let me tell you what it says, Mr. Chairman, if you haven't seen it:
The analysis prepared shall describe the potential economic impact of
the applicable major bill of resolution on major economic variables,
including real GDP, business investment, capital stock, employment, and
labor supply.
[[Page H402]]
The analysis shall also talk about revenue increases or decreases that
result. The analysis should also specify which models were used, what
your sources of data were, and shall provide an explanation as
necessary to make the models comprehensible to the public.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides one more tool that the American
people and this Congress can use to evaluate the very important
legislation that is considered here on this floor.
I hope you will ask your constituents, Mr. Chairman, why is it that
folks would oppose giving the American people these answers. You heard
me read the bill. All this bill does is provide that information.
I will say to the sponsor of this legislation that information has
been missing for far, far too long. I plan to lend my strong support to
this legislation. I thank the gentleman for the time and for his
courage in bringing this bill forward.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's mistaken. I mean, we do
get analyses now with respect to the economic impact. There's a
provision in the House rules that I referenced earlier that asked for
that, and in fact, Joint Tax has done exactly that. The figures I was
reading with respect to the negative impact on growth in the out-years
were from a dynamic analysis the Joint Tax Committee has done pursuant
to House rules.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will not on my time.
Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman if he would
yield.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I refer the gentleman to the bill, the
piece of the document I've referenced several times already. This kind
of work is done.
What you're asking for here is to, again, leave off part of the
equation, for example, the recovery bill. The recovery bill was
primarily an appropriations bill. Leave off part of the equation, but
also when it comes to the revenue piece, skew the request.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1500
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his
leadership.
What we're talking about here this afternoon is one of a package of
four budget proposals from our Republican friends on the Budget
Committee that are, in toto, going to obscure the budgeting process,
make it more complex, more expensive, and actually more confusing for
the American public.
I agree with what my good friend said about the dynamic scoring.
There are already vehicles available to be able to deal with some of
these feedback effects but not elevating it to the level of some sort
of official score. Frankly, we've seen when the CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, which is established as the impartial scorekeeper, puts
out information, like we discussed here today in the Budget Committee,
on how much impact the Recovery Act had on employment, on GDP
enhancement, on job growth. People just simply refuse to accept the
range, the calculations, things that all the independent experts agree
upon, including our own official one. So we're going to make their job
more confusing; we're going to make it more complex and give the
American public a less clear picture.
Get ready folks. My good friend from Georgia wants to deal with
freezing all baseline budgets, that are not otherwise specified in law,
assuming that there will be no increase for population growth or
inflation over 10 years. Everybody in Congress who looks at what has
happened over the last 50 years understands there will be some
adjustment--we may argue about how much--but if you're going to give
the American public an estimate of what is the most likely outcome,
having a modest inflation adjustment is the most accurate in terms of
what is likely to happen. That would be swept away and an artificial
figure established by biennial budgeting.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. There is a reason why the number of States, almost
all of which used to have biennial budgeting, have moved to annual
budgets. It's because they're more accurate; they're less complex;
they're less expensive; and it doesn't pose as much of a burden on both
the legislative branch and the administration to try and fiddle around
with things that we know are inaccurate. Then we're going to have the
risk adjustment, which will take something which is already accurately
portrayed in terms of the budget, and they're going to be adding and
subtracting values that are going to only confuse.
The four of them are an example of why my friends on the other side
of the aisle don't want to get to work and deal with things that we
might agree on, like reforming agriculture. Instead, we're playing
games with procedures that are going to give the American public less
information, and it's going to cost us more to confuse them.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman talking about other
pieces of legislation.
But what we're talking about here is more information, more
information for our colleagues, Mr. Chairman; and for the life of me, I
can't figure out why our Democratic friends on the other side of the
aisle simply, I guess, want to keep our colleagues in the dark here so
that we can continue to make the kinds of decisions that we've been
making. It's just astounding.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from
Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act
brought today by my friend and colleague Congressman Tom Price. This
good piece of legislation is a commonsense solution to the growing debt
and deficit causing concern among many Arizonans.
While I may be new to D.C. and the Halls of Congress, I am not new to
the impacts of Federal regulations and the devastating effects of
Congress' ability to live within its means. As a dentist and a small
business owner for over 25 years, I faced the uncertainty of additional
tax and regulatory burdens because the Federal Government failed to do
long-term planning.
This bill states that the Congressional Budget Office provide Members
of Congress an analysis of the real and long-term effects that a piece
of legislation would have on the economy. This, my friends, should be a
no-brainer. It is a necessary step towards taking and regaining fiscal
sanity in this Nation. Making wise decisions starts by being properly
informed on the facts and the information.
Again, I support this legislation, and I encourage the passage of
this good bill today.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about how much time
remains on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There is a reason that this institution of Congress is so discredited
among the American people. The reason is quite simple. Instead of
facing the problem, we come up with ways to avoid it. These two bills--
dynamic scoring, which basically has as a premise that any tax cut is
going to increase revenues, and baseline reform, which essentially says
that inflation is not a factor in depleting resources to meet a need,
whether it's the Pentagon or it's health care--we think that somehow
that is going to solve the problem with the debt, which is a serious
problem in this country.
Do you know what? It's time for Congress to acknowledge the obvious,
which is that the problem is the problem. These runaround reforms about
the process avoids the direct, head-on confrontation that is the debt,
and the debt is a function of too much spending and too little revenue.
Bottom line, if you are a household, if you're a local government, if
you're someone who is responsible, when you have a debt problem, you're
going to look at everything; you're going to put
[[Page H403]]
it all on the table. There are 100 Members of the House of
Representatives who signed a letter and said, Hey, let's put everything
on the table--revenues and spending. It's the only way we're going to
get a solution.
This approach is avoiding that. It's locking down on the notion that
any tax cut is going to increase revenues. It's locking down on the
notion that revenues cannot be part of the solution, and it's locking
down on this notion that if you wipe away inflation as a factor in what
we need to do to maintain level funding that somehow we'll still meet
the needs.
We had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan--two wars that weren't paid for,
both on the credit card. We had the Medicare prescription drug program
on the credit card. Whether you supported those as a Democrat or as a
Republican--and we had people on both sides of the aisle who did--
you've got to pay for it. We didn't pay for it. We're paying now the
consequences of it.
As to the so-called ``reforms'' about the process, it's always
legitimate to figure out the process--how can we do it better? How can
we get better information?--but not when it means we avoid the problem.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little perplexed by
the arguments being used in opposition on the other side.
My friend from Vermont says that this assumes that there is a certain
premise about tax cuts. Well, the bill doesn't even use the language
``tax cuts.'' It uses ``tax revenue.'' It could be a tax reduction. It
could be a tax increase. Let's look. Let's find the information. Let's
give our colleagues as much information as possible, which, again, is
what my friend from Vermont says every family in this country does when
they have a challenge. If they have a debt challenge, they get all of
the information that they can. That's simply what we're asking here,
which is to provide as much information as possible for Members of
Congress to make wiser decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I'm so pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
South Carolina and a member of the committee, Mr. Mulvaney.
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
As we sit like good Congressmen and -women in our offices and as we
watch these debates on television, sometimes we feel compelled to run
over and participate in the debate. Certainly, that's what drove me
over here today, and it's hard to know where to start. There is a long
list of things that we could talk about here today.
Mr. Chairman, we could start, for example, with the gentleman from
Maryland, who offered again today, as he did in the Budget Committee,
the suggestion that perhaps the Recovery Act generated as many as 6
million jobs. If you actually listen very closely to what he says and
read the documents that he cites, that's up to 6 million jobs saved or
created. The truth of the matter is we could make just as easily the
argument that the number is closer to 1.2 million jobs saved or
created, and that's assuming that a job saved is a job created. We
could have a discussion as to whether or not we should have been
spending $400,000 per job, but that's not the reason we're here.
So I would suggest to my friends across the aisle, if they really
believed that the Recovery Act was so wonderful, bring it up again.
Please offer us another one. In fact, bring us one twice the size, and
look the American people in the eye and say that $800 billion wasn't
enough, that we want $1.6 trillion worth of another stimulus bill.
Please, bring that, and let the President defend that as we have this
discussion between now and November.
You could also, Mr. Chairman, go into more detail about what the
gentleman from North Carolina mentioned about the PAYGO rules, which is
something I'm a little bit familiar with. My predecessor was a big
supporter of the PAYGO rules. The PAYGO rules were in place when this
government ran up its largest deficits in history. The rule was never
designed to cut spending, and it was never designed to lower the
deficit. It never accomplished what folks so fondly, in hindsight,
believe that it did in the late 1990s. You could go back and look.
Really, what drove the surpluses of the late 1990s was the reduction in
the size of the Federal Government. But, again, it's not what we're
here to talk about today.
{time} 1510
What the gentleman from Texas was talking about, however, is spot on,
and he would come to the well, as so many folks on the other side will,
and say that, well, it was those Bush tax cuts that really got us in
the hole that we're in. I don't know why we call them the Bush tax
cuts, by the way.
They were extended by a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate and
a Democrat House at the end of 2010. I have always referred to them as
the Bush-Obama tax cuts, but that doesn't seem to catch on.
But the assertion has always been that after those tax cuts, Mr.
Chairman, went into place that revenues went down, that when we cut
taxes revenue went down, because certainly that's what the CBO, under
the current rules, would tell you would happen. Under the static models
that are in place now, when we supposedly cut taxes, the CBO will tell
you, well, if you lower the tax rates, revenues will go down.
Unequivocally, this is not what happened with the Bush tax cuts in
2000s. Revenues went up every year from 2003 to the beginning of the
great recession.
That's why this bill is so important, Mr. Chairman. Washington does
not know how to count. We count in this town in a fashion that only
this town counts. The whole rest of the world doesn't understand how we
count, and the CBO scoring is a big part of that problem.
Mr. Chairman, that's why I respectfully suggest that we need to pass
this bill and send it over to the Senate.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of Mr. Price if he has
any further speakers?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I
am prepared to close.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Look, I think everybody in this body understands that the more good
information we get the better. That's why it's troubling that in this
particular bill we're asking the question of CBO in a way that will
only give us partial information. I already mentioned that we left out
the impact, the economic impact from what we think should be included.
We think the appropriations investments in transportation should be
included in any economic analysis. Clearly, important investments we
make in science and research and innovation and our infrastructure have
an economic impact, but this doesn't ask for any of that information.
There'll be some amendments that say we should. Hopefully our
colleagues will vote for them.
But what is very bizarre is the way this is structured so that it
doesn't require a macroeconomic, dynamic analysis of the major change
in law that we will make with respect to whether or not to extend all
or some of the tax cuts, because the way it's written, it will assume
those tax cuts are already in place.
Now, we've already had an analysis that was done by the Joint
Committee on Taxation, a macroeconomic dynamic analysis. It does say at
the end of that period it would actually have a drag on the economy
because it increases the deficit.
So let's make sure that we get full information, and that's where I
do want to end, by just pointing out that the most recent estimates
from the Congressional Budget Office, in terms of the impact of the
recovery bill, was in a document dated November of 2011, and there's a
chart in there that shows a range. Obviously since the recovery bill is
no longer in full effect in this current year, you don't continue to
say the positive impacts.
But Dr. Elmendorf has testified numerous times before the Budget
Committee and indicated that had it not been for the passage of the
recovery bill, had it not been for actions of the Federal Reserve,
economic growth today would be much slower. That would mean more people
out of work.
We need to do better. We need to get things moving faster. That's why
we should take up the President's jobs bill that has been sitting in
this House since September. That's why I hope the conference committee
on the payroll tax cut extension for 160 million people
[[Page H404]]
will get our job done quickly so that we can provide those
opportunities to help the economy grow when it's in this very fragile
state.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just close by saying we all want information.
Let's just not ask for information in a selective way designed to get a
preconceived answer.
The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
comments, and I appreciate his perspective.
However, it's clear that every single revised report on the stimulus
comes up and states that it is costing more. It's costing the economy
more and that the jobs that are created, ``created,'' decrease every
time there is a new estimate. And so we're approaching zero jobs saved
or created. In a short time I suspect we'll be at jobs lost from the
stimulus.
In fact, the CBO Director yesterday, in committee, said, The extra
government spending from the Recovery Act of 2009, unless there are
offsetting changes made that pay off the extra debt that was incurred,
the economy will be worse off. So it's interesting to see our
colleagues on the other side continue to grab onto what they think is a
lifeline of the stimulus bill that with time looks worse and worse. And
maybe, Mr. Chairman, if we had only had this piece of legislation at
the time of the adoption of the stimulus bill, so-called stimulus bill,
maybe somebody would have thought differently. Maybe they would have
recognized that, in fact, that it was going to have the real effect
that it has, which is to decrease the vitality of the economy.
Mr. Chairman, it's pretty doggone simple. This bill is pretty simple.
You want more information or you want less information.
This is remarkable common sense. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
it ought to be common ground upon which this House can stand. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this piece of legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, while I am pleased that this Congress is
looking at reforming the budget process, I do not believe this
legislation is the solution. The biggest problem with the budget is
that, while the game may not be perfect, the players are the reason it
is not working. Even Jim Nussle, former Republican Chairman of the
House Budget Committee and Director of the Office of Management and
Budget for President G.W. Bush, testified that, ``It may not be that
the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that the
tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not being
used.''
It is no surprise that since Day One of this Tea Party Congress, the
majority has pushed forward with an array of anti-worker, anti-
environment, anti-oversight, and anti-growth agenda, that serves the
politics of their caucus rather than the citizens of this great Nation.
The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011 encompasses this perfectly.
As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I'm very familiar
with the ``Dynamic Scoring'' song and dance. Dynamic Scoring seeks to
skirt the fundamentals of Economics 101: less revenue means less money
and higher deficits. Instead, under this bill and its dynamic scoring,
we will assume tax cuts produce fantasy levels of economic growth and
pay for themselves.
The proof is in the pudding. We don't have to look far to see what
happened with Bush tax cuts. They led to an explosion of our national
debt, and as a new CBO report points out, we could decrease the deficit
by almost half if we let the Bush tax cut expire.
We should not enshrine this dishonest, Enron style accounting into
law when we have such clear evidence that it is inaccurate. If our goal
is to reform the budget process so we can enact sound fiscal policy,
then this legislation must be rejected.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Budget, printed in the bill, it shall be in order
to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
the text of the Rules Committee print 112-10 dated January 25, 2012.
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3582
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of
2012''.
SEC. 2. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES.
(a) In General.--Part A of title IV of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MAJOR LEGISLATION
``Sec. 407. (a) Congressional Budget Office.--The
Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable,
prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any
committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate
(except the Committee on Appropriations of each House), as a
supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, a
macroeconomic impact analysis of the budgetary effects of
such bill or resolution for the ten fiscal-year period
beginning with the first fiscal year for which an estimate
was prepared under section 402 and each of the next three ten
fiscal-year periods. Such estimate shall be predicated upon
the supplemental projection described in section 202(e)(4).
The Director shall submit to such committee the macroeconomic
impact analysis, together with the basis for the analysis. As
a supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, all
such information so submitted shall be included in the report
accompanying such bill or resolution.
``(b) Economic Impact.--The analysis prepared under
subsection (a) shall describe the potential economic impact
of the applicable major bill or resolution on major economic
variables, including real gross domestic product, business
investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.
The analysis shall also describe the potential fiscal effects
of the bill or resolution, including any estimates of revenue
increases or decreases resulting from changes in gross
domestic product. To the extent practicable, the analysis
should use a variety of economic models in order to reflect
the full range of possible economic outcomes resulting from
the bill or resolution. The analysis (or a technical appendix
to the analysis) shall specify the economic and econometric
models used, sources of data, relevant data transformations,
and shall include such explanation as is necessary to make
the models comprehensible to academic and public policy
analysts.
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `macroeconomic impact analysis' means--
``(A) an estimate of the changes in economic output,
employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to
result from enactment of the proposal;
``(B) an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result
from enactment of the proposal; and
``(C) a statement identifying the critical assumptions and
the source of data underlying that estimate;
``(2) the term `major bill or resolution' means any bill or
resolution if the gross budgetary effects of such bill or
resolution for any fiscal year in the period for which an
estimate is prepared under section 402 is estimated to be
greater than .25 percent of the current projected gross
domestic product of the United States for any such fiscal
year;
``(3) the term `budgetary effect', when applied to a major
bill or resolution, means the changes in revenues, outlays,
deficits, and debt resulting from that measure; and
``(4) the term `revenue feedback' means changes in revenue
resulting from changes in economic growth as the result of
the enactment of any major bill or resolution.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 406
the following new item:
``Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CBO REPORT TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.
Section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(4)(A) After the President's budget submission under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in addition
to the baseline projections, the Director shall submit to the
Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and
the Senate a supplemental projection assuming extension of
current tax policy for the fiscal year commencing on October
1 of that year with a supplemental projection for the 10
fiscal-year period beginning with that fiscal year, assuming
the extension of current tax policy.
``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term `current
tax policy' means the tax policy in statute as of December 31
of the current year assuming--
``(i) the budgetary effects of measures extending the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
``(ii) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
``(iii) the continued application of the alternative
minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011
pursuant to title II of the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,
assuming that for taxable years beginning after 2011 the
exemption amount shall equal--
``(I) the exemption amount for taxable years beginning in
2011, as indexed for inflation; or
``(II) if a subsequent law modifies the exemption amount
for later taxable years, the modified exemption amount, as
indexed for inflation; and
[[Page H405]]
``(iv) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift,
and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III
of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,
and Job Creation Act of 2010.
``(5) On or before July 1 of each year, the Director shall
submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the Long-Term Budget Outlook
for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year and
at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 112-383. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. PETERS. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 1, after ``SHORT TITLE'' insert ``;
FINDINGS''.
Page 1, line 2, insert ``(a) Short Title.--'' before ``This
Act''.
Page 1, after line 3, insert the following new subsection:
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer said that President Bush believed that the tax cut
package enacted in 2001 and expanded in 2003 would ``create
additional revenues for the Federal Government and pay for
itself.''.
(2) Before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted, the
Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising
surpluses, from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2001
to 5.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2011, with the
Federal Government operating debt free by 2009.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003 have added over $2 trillion to budget
deficits from 2002-2011.
(4) Despite signing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 into law,
President George W. Bush's administration had, according to
the Wall Street Journal, ``the worst track record for job
creation since the government began keeping records'' in
1939.
(5) From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the
slowest pace for any eight-year span since 1953.
(6) Median household income declined during the Bush
Administration for the first time since 1967, when this data
began to be tracked.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Peters
amendment to H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012.
As we consider legislation that would mandate the Congressional
Budget Office use dynamic scoring to evaluate the macroeconomic impact
of large tax cuts, we literally cannot afford to ignore the lessons of
the past decade.
My Republican colleagues want to enact a seemingly subtle change so
that they can more easily advance their agenda of tax cuts for the rich
while slashing critical programs that American families and workers
rely on each and every day.
Dynamic scoring's supporters back this legislation in large part
because it can mask the cost of tax cuts while ignoring the multiplier
effects that investments in education, public health, and
infrastructure can provide.
In order to evaluate these claims, we need only look at the claims
made by those who supported the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and see how they
stacked up next to reality. Despite pledges from the Bush
administration that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 would generate such
significant economic activity that they would pay for themselves, we
know that this is not the case.
This is why I have put forward an amendment that will simply add a
factual findings section that details the impact of the tax cuts of
2001 and 2003 without altering the functional aspects of the bill.
These findings include:
1. On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said
that President Bush believed that the tax cut package enacted in 2001
and expanded in 2003 would ``create additional revenues for the Federal
Government and pay for itself.''
{time} 1520
Two, before the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 were enacted, the
Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising surpluses, from
2.7 percent of gross national product in 2001, to 5.3 of gross national
product in 2011, with the Federal Government operating debt free by
2009.
We know this, of course, did not happen. Instead, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 have added
over $2 trillion to budget deficits from 2002 to '11. Despite signing
tax cuts of 2001 and '03 into law, President Bush's administration had,
according to The Wall Street Journal, ``the worst track record for job
creation since the government began keeping records in 1939.''
From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the slowest pace
for any period since 1953; and median household income declined during
the Bush administration for the first time since 1967 when this data
was first tracked.
We have all lived through this past decade and have seen the damaging
effects the Bush tax cuts have had on our Federal budget. I think it's
safe to say that anyone who can possibly claim to belong to the
``reality caucus'' agrees that the Bush tax cuts not only contributed
to taking our Nation from budget surpluses to massive deficits, but
also contributed to unprecedented levels of income inequality.
If Congress cannot learn from past mistakes, we are destined to
repeat them. I urge my colleagues to support my simple, factual
amendment to show that Congress understands the true impacts of the
Bush tax cuts and recognizes that, while tax cuts might stimulate
additional economic activity, the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 certainly
did not pay for themselves.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is a little amusing, I guess,
that our colleagues on the other side love to talk about the past. I'm
not sure whether it's a desire for fantasy or misery, but talking about
the past is interesting. But this amendment has absolutely nothing--
nothing--to do with the legislation that's being considered. We don't
need to rehash the economic record of the last 10 years; we need to
look forward. And that's what this bill does. It's a forward-looking
piece of legislation.
And looking forward, as the CBO reported on Tuesday, if tax relief is
allowed to expire at the end of this year, which seems to be what my
colleagues on the other side are advocating, we would then have the
largest tax increase in the history of our country. CBO says economic
growth would be as much as 3 percent lower than it would be if that tax
relief were extended.
So what we need is dynamic appropriate scoring, more information,
more data for our colleagues to be able to have that kind of
information so when they make decisions, they'll make, again,
hopefully, wiser decisions.
This amendment truly makes no improvement whatsoever to our process,
our budget process. I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, while I find it interesting that the
speaker from the other side believes that this is fantasy, these are
facts. And he believes that facts should not be part of the debate,
which is probably why we are in the trouble that we are in right now
when the majority party believes that opinions should not be weighed
down by the facts of the situation.
What I'm offering in this statement is simply factual statements that
don't detract in any way from the intended impact of this legislation,
but it's certainly important to having a full and honest debate that we
need to have an understanding of what happened in the past. If we do
not have that understanding of the past, if we don't step up to the
reality of what actually occurred as a result of missteps in public
policy in the past, we will repeat them once again.
What I'm hearing from the majority party is that they want to repeat
the
[[Page H406]]
mistakes of the past, mistakes that led to uncontrollable deficits and
also mistakes that gave huge windfalls to the wealthiest people in this
country at the expense of middle class taxpayers.
As a Democrat, we are very proud to stand up for middle class
families and want to make sure that tax benefits to middle class
taxpayers continue to go to those families that are struggling each and
every day. On the other hand, the wealthiest among us, those with the
highest income that have reaped the most benefit, should be paying
their fair share. And by having tax cuts, what we will do is cut into
those middle class families. This is a factual statement. If we do not
recognize the reality of the facts, we are doomed to repeat those
mistakes.
I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, lines 14 and 15, strike ``(except the Committee on
Appropriations of each House)''.
Page 1, line 16, before the comma, insert ``or as a
standalone analysis in the case of the Committee on
Appropriations of each House''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, yet
important, amendment that will in fact deliver the actual transparency
the proponents of this bill claim to be providing. My amendment will
ensure the dynamic scoring called for in this legislation and will
capture the broader economic effects of Federal spending as well as
Federal tax cuts.
The way this bill is written, to exclude appropriations bills
highlights the political intent of the authors of this bill to only
take into account the effective tax cuts. Both spending Federal tax
dollars and sending them back have economic consequences; we all know
that. And looking at just one side of the ledger is nothing more than
political gamesmanship.
Of course, my Republican friends have cleverly baked into the base a
permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts which CBO already has said
will create a drag on the economy in the long term. But I guess we
don't want to let the facts or sound economic policy get in our way.
That's why my amendment would include the appropriations, will fix that
disparity, and provide us a clearer picture of the economic effects of
all of our actions.
As my Republican friends seem to have forgotten, the Federal
Government has had a long history of partnering with the private
sector, and our Nation's universities in support of basic research are
a great illustration. These investments spur American innovation and
provide measurable, tangible economic benefits.
For example, the Federal Government has invested $12.8 billion in the
Human Genome Project since it began in 1988. According to a recent
report by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the total
economic investment of that one project and its return has exceeded
$780 billion. In 2010 alone, the field of genomics directly supported
51,000 jobs in this country and another 310,000 indirect jobs. It
generated $67 billion in economic activity last year and resulted in
$3.7 billion coming into the Federal Treasury. The economic return on
that single Federal investment has been significant and bears
consideration as my Republican colleagues are trying to retrench on
such spending.
While not every appropriation will have a similar positive economic
result like the Human Genome Project, the economic effect of each
should nonetheless be considered by this Congress as it actually
appropriates funds.
My amendment will simply correct that oversight and provide proper
balance to the accountability and transparency the authors of the bill
say they wish to achieve. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment. If Congress is serious about capturing the true impact of
all of our actions in the economy, we ought to consider all of them,
including spending and appropriations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is what professors
of logic--now, I know that there's not a whole lot of logic around this
town--but professors of logic would call a nullity. Adopting this
amendment would not require CBO to prepare an analysis of bills
reported from the Appropriations Committee, as my good friend from
Virginia desires.
Section 407 of the Congressional Budget Act requires CBO to prepare a
macroeconomic impact analysis of ``major bills or resolutions,'' which
is the term that's defined in section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the
bill uses cost estimates prepared by the CBO under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act. Section 402 does not apply to bills reported
from the Appropriations Committee. So this amendment accomplishes
absolutely nothing.
Even if the amendment were properly drafted, it would be meaningless
to require a 40-year macroeconomic impact analysis for a 1-year
appropriations bill. Even the largest appropriations bill, the Defense
appropriations bill, is only about 3 percent of the gross domestic
product in 1 year, or much less than 1 percent of the GDP over a 10-
year period of time. So the macroeconomic impact of 1-year legislation
oftentimes approaches zero and then can be changed with the next
succeeding appropriations bills in years 2, 3, and 4.
So the amendment is drafted in such a way that it has no effect
whatsoever. Even if it were properly drafted, it's a bad idea without
providing any new meaningful information for Congress.
I urge defeat of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on this side.
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that
the same logic my friend from Georgia uses that a simple 1-year
appropriation may not have much measurable impact on the economy could
also apply to tax cuts, short-term tax cuts. I would further point out
that his opposition to a simple improvement to this bill, I think,
sheds light on the intent of the bill. It exposes what's really going
on here: Let's try to find a facile way to guarantee the Bush tax cuts
are extended and the tax cutting is even easier on the wealthier who
ought to be paying their fair share.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H407]]
Page 2, line 14, insert ``interest rates,'' after
``employment,''.
Page 3, line 7, insert ``interest rates,'' after
``employment,''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
First of all, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for making my amendment in order and granting me the opportunity
to address this.
I rise today to offer what I think is a very commonsense amendment to
the underlying bill. There's some of this debate that there's very
little to debate about. Our national debt is nearly $15 trillion. We're
borrowing about 30 cents on every dollar. This represents, in my
opinion, one of the biggest threats to our economic future, and I
believe it needs to be a top priority.
But I also believe the first step in addressing our national debt is
getting honest about how we calculate it and the impact of it. That
means we have to take the right factors into account, and that includes
the impact that higher deficits will have on our economy.
As you know, the main problem with deficits is they push up interest
rates. Eventually, it will happen. Higher interest rates hurt the
economy by making it more expensive to buy a home or a car. They make
it harder for my constituents to afford college for their children, and
they make it more difficult for local businesses to get credit they
need to grow.
My amendment would simply ensure that the Congressional Budget Office
and the Joint Committee on Taxation expressly include interest rates in
the list of economic factors they consider in their studies. If we
don't consider interest rates, the underlying bill would underestimate
the impact unpaid government spending--or the un-offset tax cuts--would
have on the economy and the deficit. Congress has to stop hiding behind
the funny math that masks the true costs of our policies.
I'd like to stress that my amendment is nonpartisan and
nonideological. It's completely neutral on whether the deficit is
increased by unpaid-for spending or un-offset tax cuts. The effects are
the same. It simply ensures that Congress, when we take a vote, takes
into account whether it was done in a fiscally responsible manner. We
must let facts drive our decision-making, not ideology. If the facts
dispute our ideology, we need to change our ideology, not the other way
around. As a high school teacher, one thing I know for sure is you need
to start by getting the math right.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition, though I'm not opposed.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I want to commend my colleague from
Minnesota for recognizing the wisdom of the legislation and the
importance of looking at the dynamism of the economy and effects that
ought to be relayed to us from the Congressional Budget Office. The
Congressional Budget Office's macroeconomic analysis oftentimes already
includes interest rates if the effects are relevant; however, we
believe that this amendment helps clarify that, and we have no
objection to the adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for having
that opportunity and for allowing this to go forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Fudge
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 14, strike ``and'' and on line 15, before the
period, insert ``, and income inequality''.
Page 3, line 7, strike ``and'' and on line 8, insert ``,
and income inequality'' after ``tax revenues''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Fudge) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee and I thank the
chairman for making this amendment in order.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3582, the
Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012.
The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act requires the Congressional Budget Office
to provide an impact analysis, in addition to a score, when legislation
would have a budgetary effect greater than one-quarter of 1 percent of
GDP.
The bill requires certain variables to be considered to determine
economic impact. As the bill is currently written, the variables
considered include impact on real GDP, business investment, the capital
stock, employment, and labor supply. The bill describes these variables
as major economic variables.
One of the most important economic variables is missing from H.R.
3582. My amendment would insert income equality among the variables
used to determine economic impact. It would also require an estimate of
the change in income equality to be included in an impact analysis.
Income inequality is real in America. It is time we start making sure
our laws strengthen the middle class, not weaken it.
America is indeed the land of opportunity. It is one of the
principles upon which our great Nation was founded. Yet in 2012, if you
are born into a low-income family, you will most likely grow up to be
poor. Sixty-five percent of Americans born into families with earnings
in the bottom fifth percentile stay in the bottom two-fifths, while 62
percent of those raised in families with earnings in the top fifth stay
in the top two-fifths.
America has become a wealthier Nation, but the wealth has bypassed
the middle class. Between 1979 and 2007, overall American household
incomes grew by 62 percent. The top 1 percent of earners saw their
incomes increase by 275 percent over the past 30 years. That means
their incomes nearly quadrupled. In comparison, one-fifth of households
with the lowest incomes only saw their incomes increase by 18 percent.
Although the pie is growing larger, middle-class Americans are watching
their slices get smaller. Even some of my Republican colleagues have
acknowledged the problem of economic immobility and wealth disparity in
this Nation.
Clearly, if impact analyses are going to be required of the CBO, the
factors considered must include income inequality.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to draw attention to the
fact that this appears to be essentially where our colleagues across
the aisle will probably be taking the national debate for the next 11
months. This is the politics of division. This is not the politics of
unity. This is not the politics of trying to bring people together and
seeing the country succeed. It's the politics of trying to break us
down into different classes.
We hear a lot of talk and will hear a lot of talk this year about
fairness, about the 1 percent. What we won't hear, Mr. Chairman, is
that, for example, the top 1 percent of the wage earners in this
country make 20 percent of the income but pay 40 percent of the taxes.
{time} 1540
You won't hear the other side define what is fair; they just want
more and more and more. In fact, when you do ask them to talk about
what they would specifically have us do--which is go back to the
Clinton era tax rates on the top 1 percent--it would pay only 8 cents
of every dollar of deficit in this
[[Page H408]]
Nation. It's not designed to solve any problems, Mr. Chairman, and
neither is this amendment. It is designed to continue to try and define
us.
You can look at this amendment and know that it is simply offered for
political gain. It doesn't even attempt to define income inequality in
the amendment. It's simply designed to make a political point.
Furthermore, you can get this information from Joint Tax if you simply
ask for it. That tool is already available to us.
Mr. Chairman, Americans are not envious. They are more interested in
how they are doing than whether or not their neighbors are succeeding.
They are not envious, and we should not pass an amendment that assumes
that they are.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Can the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say for the record that I did
not talk about class; my colleague did. Let me as well say to you that
if you talk to the American people, they believe in fundamental
fairness. I don't think that the American people do not believe in
fairness. I further don't believe that the American people live in a
Nation where they don't believe that they can ever accomplish the
American Dream. I don't believe that the American people believe that
they cannot climb the ladders to success. I do not believe that we live
in a Nation where people do not believe that they can rise above their
circumstances.
So let me just say to my colleague, it's not about class. It's about
the Nation in which we live, the Nation where people come from all over
the world wanting to see what it means to be great, what it means to
realize the American Dream. That's the America that I'm talking about.
This is not frivolous, this is what is right. This is what the
American people want, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, it's the 2nd of February. We have roughly
10 months between now and the next election. It's plenty of time for
the folks across the aisle to let us know what they mean by fairness.
Tell us, what does it mean? When you say that we want a fair Tax Code,
we want people to pay their fair share, would you please just let us
know what that means in terms of raw numbers. Give us a real proposal
as to what that means, and give us a real proposal that actually solves
the problem, because raising taxes on the top 1 percent simply will not
accomplish what they say that it will. Again, it pays only 8 cents of
every dollar worth of deficit. Let us know what fairness is, but I can
assure you, Mr. Chairman, it is not this amendment. For that reason, I
think we should defeat it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 18, after the period insert the following new
sentence: ``The analysis shall also include estimates of the
potential impact, if any, on HUBZones (as such term is
defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(p))).''
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I, too, want to express my appreciation to
the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to come in. And I
acknowledge the ranking member of our Budget Committee for his
excellent service, Mr. Van Hollen. I thank Dr. Price for his presence
here today and engaging in this discussion.
In a few days, I will be meeting with a number of my clergy, along
with my small business community, coming from all walks of life, and
all of us have found in our hearts and our minds to recognize that
small business is in fact the backbone of this country. So I would ask
that, as we look at the issue of macroeconomic analysis of this
legislation, that we include a well-defined concept to understand what
the impact will be on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business
Act.
H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a
macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a
large budgetary effect, and under this bill, there would be analysis
that would come about on a number of issues that would, in fact,
involve the gross domestic product.
The Small Business Administration administers several programs to
support small businesses, including Historically Underused Business
Zone empowerment contracting, better known as the HUBZone. The HUBZone
program is an effective program. It's a small business Federal
contracting assistance program that crosses the land. Wherever you
live, you have the opportunity to participate in a HUB program, whose
primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in
distressed communities, irrespective of your location and your
background. It provides participating small businesses located in areas
with low-income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with
contracting opportunities in the form of set-aside, sole-source awards
and price evaluation preferences.
Mr. Chairman, this could happen to any community. One moment you
could be thriving, and a tornado could come to you in the next moment
and you fall in the category of a HUBZone to revitalize small
businesses. So I ask my colleagues to support an amendment that spreads
across America, and to make the determination that the vitality of
small businesses is important to all of us and an assessment should be
made using the HUBZone and the impact such legislation would have.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for offering
this amendment. But I would suggest that the macroeconomic impact
analysis that's required already by the legislation will analyze the
effect of job growth and capital formation and economic growth. To add
an additional criteria in the analysis is unnecessary, and truly
encourages focus on the interests in particular locations as opposed to
the general welfare.
This is one of those areas that is rightly worked out in committee,
the discussion of these issues in committee. So I would suggest to the
gentlelady from Texas that this is not the appropriate opportunity to
try to add items to the bill that actually continue to confound the
information that would be provided to Members and focus on dividing
things as opposed to general information.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to return to the bill itself and
to discuss for just a moment the notion that there is some type of bias
within the piece of legislation itself. We've heard our friends on the
other side of the aisle talk about that it's biasing positive
information as it relates to tax cuts or tax reductions.
Again, I would urge my colleagues who are listening to this and will
be considering this piece of legislation in short order to read the
legislation. The legislation says nothing about whether or not the
dynamic scoring, the flexible scoring that ought to be available for
Members, that kind of information is going to look at tax reductions or
tax increases, whether it's going to look at how that affects the
overall vitality of the economy. In fact, again, what this does is to
provide much greater information for our colleagues here to be making
decisions.
[[Page H409]]
And, as so many of my friends on our side of the aisle have testified
to during this discussion on this piece of legislation, what's needed
around here is more information. We now have an administration that has
been marching to the Treasury to spend more and more and more and more
and more money, plunging us into incredible debt--$1 trillion deficits
for each of the 4 years of this current administration--$1 trillion,
Mr. Chairman. We've never been there before. And it's clearly having an
incredible dragging effect on the economy.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to have Members offer pieces of
legislation and have the Congressional Budget Office be able to tell
us, say look, if you're going to insist on continuing down this road of
debt and doubt and despair, this is the consequence in the real
economy; the consequence is that it will continue to have a drag on the
economy, jobs will not be truly created? In spite of the guise from the
administration that they talk about jobs being created or saved, jobs
won't be created. There's a better way. There is a better way. And the
American people know there's a better way.
{time} 1550
And they know there's a better way that we can be informed. They know
that more information for their Member of Congress will allow their
Member of Congress to make wiser decisions. So all this bill is about,
the Pro-Growth Budget Act, all it is about is an attempt to give you,
to give me, to provide for every single Member of this body not biased
information, not information that's gaming the system, information that
allows for us to make wiser decisions.
Wouldn't it have been wonderful, Mr. Chairman, if during some of the
major legislation of the past couple of years, wouldn't it have been
wonderful to have had an outside entity, hopefully objective entity, be
able to weigh in and say, goodness gracious, if you spend $1 trillion
of money that we don't have, this is going to be the consequence in the
economy; this is going to be one of the outcomes of it, which is you're
going to increase the debt in this country; you're going to decrease
the sense that businesses out there have any certainty in the economy;
and, therefore, they're not going to be able to create the kind of jobs
that all of us desire and all of us want?
That's the kind of information that we would have liked to have had.
That's what we were saying at the time, and now it's beginning to play
out, but it's playing out with incredible destruction in our
communities across our great land, playing out in ways that makes it so
that individuals are hurting and are harmed by the actions that were
taken by the previous Congress and this administration.
Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have that information so that
people could weigh the options?
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and adopt the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for extending his analysis, but I
am saddened by the fact that issues dealing with income inequality,
where we're simply trying to acknowledge and overtake comments by
Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney: I'm not concerned about the poor--
my point about the poor is that you're rich today and poor tomorrow.
Catastrophic illness, devastation through a natural disaster, man-made
disaster, a terrorist act will put many of us in conditions that we
would have never imagined.
What Dr. Price has failed to acknowledge, and our Republican friends,
is that the dynamic scoring is rooted in anti-tax. It is clear that the
bill's language and approach is designed to make it easy to enact
deficit-increasing tax cuts.
Keeping the Bush tax cuts are not going to improve the economy. Small
businesses will. And ensuring that we don't have revenue will
definitely send this Nation down a periled road of no return.
Their own friend, former chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim
Nussle, testified it may not be that the budget process is broken. It
may not be, in other words, the tools are broken, but it may be that
we're not using it. He, too, acknowledged the faultiness of dynamic
scoring.
What I'm doing here today is to ask for this amendment to take into
consideration hardworking small business owners, assess whether or not
they will be impacted negatively.
We already know that agencies are going to have a difficult time in
scoring this. We already know that this scoring will have no impact on
improving the economy. But the increase in taxes that our colleagues
want to do, with no balancing increase in revenues to be able to bring
down the deficit, is the peril that they're sending us to.
They have had hearings, and there have been those who've acknowledged
that dynamic scoring does little; but it may impact negatively those
hardworking businesses that need to have the resources that would be
provided to them by the Small Business Administration in their time of
need or in their time of growth.
I ask my colleagues to add one more element of information that will
give us guidance as to what dynamic scoring will ultimately mean. There
is no doubt that an overwhelming number of Americans agree that we must
do revenue, and certainly we must respond to the needs of the American
people.
None of us are reckless with taxes or increasing taxes, Mr. Chairman.
We want to be balanced in what we do. I believe my amendment is a
balanced amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #5 to H.R. 3582,
``The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2011.'' My amendment requires the
Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic
analysis estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUB ZONE areas
as defined by the Small Business Act.
H.R. 3582, would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a
macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a
large budgetary effect. Under this bill the CBO would be required to
provide an analysis of the impact on the economy of any bill that would
have an estimated budgetary effect of greater than 0.25 percent of
gross domestic product, GDP, in any fiscal year.
CBO macroeconomic analysis would include the estimated effect on
revenues and outlays of a change in GDP resulting from the legislation
being evaluated. Those estimates would have to assume that certain tax
policies not currently in CBO's baseline are extended. Furthermore, CBO
would be required to publicly provide the assumptions and models
underlying those analyses.
In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled
the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that is in
essence what is going on here.
Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of
policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere;
in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction, also known as the super committee.
Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic
scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the
cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.
It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed
to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts. The bill
requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact
of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more
uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.
None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim
Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally
have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has
been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic
scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate
than the current way.''
Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves,
generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that
revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair,
I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.
Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before? I recall that the Bush
administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to
estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would
increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down
form of budgeting.
Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but
instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to
look at the affect, should this measure pass, on HUB Zones, as defined
in the Small Business Act.
The Small Business Administration, SBA, administers several programs
to support small
[[Page H410]]
businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone
Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUB Zone program. The HUB
Zone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program
``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital
investment in distressed communities.'' It provides participating small
businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or
high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of
``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.
According to the Congressional Research Service, In FY2010, the
federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone
certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded
through the HUBZone program.
Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because
that's what we should be talking about on the House Floor today.
The Budget Committee has held two hearings on the general topic of
budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines.
Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness,
testified that ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It
may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the
fact that the tools are not even being used.''
Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office, CBO,
staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message
is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems
faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to
deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important
thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''
And Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time--
though--In the interest of fairness to the small businesses in
distressed communities, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment,
even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.
[From Center for American Progress, Nov. 23, 2011]
Five Problems With Dynamic Scoring
(By Sarah Ayres)
Dynamic scoring--an attempt to measure the macroeconomic
effects of policy changes before they happen--continues to
pop up everywhere, even in negotiations by the erstwhile
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as
the super committee. Long a favorite tool of antitax zealots,
dynamic scoring poses a number of problems that make it a
poor tool for estimating the cost of proposed legislation,
and the agencies tasked with making these estimates have
rightly rejected it for years.
Among those who advocate this method, it is confined to
revenue estimates, but it could be applied to spending as
well. Fans of dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for
themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth
that revenues will actually increase on net. In particular,
the Bush administration lobbied for the use of dynamic
scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that
tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves.
Of course the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, instead
causing our national debt to explode.
Dynamic scoring was a bad idea then and it is still a bad
idea today. Here are five reasons why we shouldn't use
dynamic scoring.
Conventional revenue estimates already include behavioral
responses
While some proponents of dynamic scoring explain it as an
alternative to ``static'' standard scoring estimates, the
conventional cost estimates prepared by the Congressional
Budget Office, or CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation,
or JCT, are not actually static. In estimating the budgetary
effects of proposed legislation, CBO and JCT both
incorporate the microeconomic behavioral effects of policy
changes into their estimates. For example, when they score
a gas-tax increase, they account for the reduction in gas
purchases that would result.
What they don't do is attempt to measure the macroeconomic
effects--the effects a policy will have on the overall growth
of the economy. As JCT explains, ``estimates always take into
account many likely behavioral responses by taxpayers to
proposed changes in tax law . . . [including] shifts in the
timing of transactions and income recognition, shifts between
business sectors and entity form, shifts in portfolio
holdings, shifts in consumption, and tax planning and
avoidance.'' The official JCT scores do assume that GDP will
not change from the projected CBO baseline.
We cannot accurately measure the macroeconomic effects of tax
changes
One problem with attempting to measure macroeconomic
feedback is that estimates depend on a lot of assumptions.
Broad economywide responses to tax policy changes are complex
and often contradictory. This reflects the wide range of
effects a tax change can have on different actors.
As an example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
or CBPP, notes that reducing marginal tax rates can lead to
two different behavioral responses. Increasing the after-tax
compensation that a worker receives for an additional hour of
work could incentivize the worker to take on additional work
because the awards are greater. At the same time, increasing
a worker's take-home pay for the same hours of work could
also incentivize the worker to work a fewer number of hours
for the same amount of money. Which of these two effects will
be larger, and by how much? The empirical record simply does
not offer us a clear-cut answer to that question. The same is
true of myriad other questions that dynamic scoring
implicitly or explicitly raises. There is no set of accepted
rules that can be applied universally to all tax-policy
changes occurring in a variety of economic environments.
Even if we had clear-cut answers, there are practical
limits to the level of sophistication that the estimating
agencies could bring to dynamic scoring. Former CBO director
Rudolph Penner describes the problem: ``Consistent dynamic
scoring is logistically impossible given current technology.
Scoring is a hectic process. The CBO and JCT produce hundreds
of scores each year. Congress always wants scores
instantaneously, and analysts often work through the night to
keep them happy. Dynamic scoring would force analysts to make
many more judgment calls than they do today. Quality control
would be difficult, and that implies a high risk that
ideological biases will pollute the analysis.''
Estimates require making assumptions about future policies
Will a tax cut be paid for by spending cuts now or by
taking on future debt? Macroeconomic responses may differ
greatly depending on how policymakers choose to pay for the
policy. Requiring budget analysts to guess how the policy
will be paid for in order to score it opens up the
possibility that their assumptions will influence the
projected macroeconomic changes as much or even more than the
policy itself. In testimony before the House Committee on
Rules in 2002, CBO director Dan Crippen expressed concern
that his office would be stepping into a political minefield
by making these guesses: ``CBO could make an assumption about
what the next five Congresses and at least two presidents
will do, but doing so would subject us and the results to a
chorus of controversy.''
Even if dynamic scoring worked as advertised, there is
evidence the effects are quite small
In 2006 a CBPP analysis of cost estimates for President
Bush's proposal to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent
found that the dynamic estimates did not differ greatly from
conventional estimates. Two dynamic estimates prepared by the
CBO differed by less than 4 percent from the conventional
estimate. Even the Bush administration's own estimate found
that macroeconomic feedback would offset less than 10 percent
of the conventionally estimated cost. There is no evidence
that we are missing out on large macroeconomic effects using
conventional scoring methods.
Lawmakers can pass policies regardless of their score
If Congress and the president believe a policy will have
positive macroeconomic effects, nothing about conventional
scoring prevents them from passing it into law. The Bush tax
cuts were enacted despite their score because policymakers
believed they would be good for the economy. With
conventional scoring, everyone generally knows what's
included in the estimate and can make their own judgments
based on that knowledge. Dynamic scoring would only introduce
more obscurity to the process.
For these five reasons, CBO and JCT have rightly chosen not
to include dynamic scoring in their official cost estimates.
Switching to dynamic scoring would greatly reduce
transparency in the revenue-estimating process. Macroeconomic
forecasting is an imperfect science and the underlying
evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. Using
dynamic scoring would greatly pressure estimating agencies to
make assumptions--assumptions that would be hard to pick out,
difficult to evaluate, and likely very important at their
extremes. CBO and JCT already incorporate behavioral
responses into their cost estimates, and attempts to measure
macroeconomic effects of the proposed policies will be
fraught with inaccuracies and perceived as politically
biased.
We may be able to resolve some of these problems in the
future but for now there are many reasons why it doesn't make
sense to use dynamic scoring.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H411]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 2, insert the following:
``(c) Taxpayer Receipt.--The Director shall create and
maintain a permanent website with the domain name
TaxpayerReceipt.gov (or a similar name if that is
unavailable) and that includes a calculator that allows
taxpayers to enter their annual income and receive an
estimate of the amount of their projected contribution to or
receipt from any applicable major bill or resolution in the
budget year and the succeeding nine years, assuming the
taxpayer has a constant annual income.''.
Page 3, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create a simple CBO-
sponsored Web site where taxpayers could learn how much they would be
contributing to major Federal spending programs under consideration by
Congress. Similarly, it would allow taxpayers to learn how much their
taxes would increase or decrease under any major tax legislation being
considered by this Congress.
The fact is, we don't do a good enough job communicating with our
constituents. There's too much misinformation out there, and good
information isn't accessible enough to Americans without connections to
Washington. Try digging through a government Web site, and you'll see
the difficulty. My staff gets calls all the time from constituents who
are having trouble finding good information about our budget and our
Tax Code.
My amendment would take a significant and necessary step towards
increasing transparency and accountability. If Congress wants to pass a
major new spending program, the tax and the costs to the taxpayer
should be made transparent. If the Congress wants to pass a tax
increase, the costs to the taxpayer should be transparent. And if
Congress wants to pass a tax cut, taxpayers should know exactly how
they or someone in their tax bracket would benefit.
Transparency is the best way to hold lawmakers in Washington
accountable, and it's the best way to rein in out-of-control deficits.
Our constituents have a right to this information, and we shouldn't
skimp when it comes to transparency.
I've been working on this taxpayer receipt idea since 2010, and 15 of
my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, have joined me in
supporting similar legislation to this effect.
However, at this time, I understand the gentleman from Georgia is
opposed to this amendment, which pretty much guarantees that it will go
down in a blazing ball of martyrdom. And while I'm a Cubs fan and my
team hasn't won a World Series since before manned flight, I am
realistic. So I will offer to withdraw this amendment if the gentleman
will commit to work with me to move this idea forward in a separate
venue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Am I to understand that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment?
The CHAIR. The amendment has not been withdrawn.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Not formally, if I could respond.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the gentleman yielded back?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has yielded back.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And the gentleman is able to withdraw the
amendment after he has yielded back?
The CHAIR. Yes, by unanimous consent.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman
from Illinois for his amendment. But as we have had our staffs discuss,
the amendment would truly mark a significant departure from CBO's
historical mission of providing information to policymakers on fiscal
and economic implications of a legislation.
It would impose a significant new requirement on CBO to calculate the
taxpayer benefit or the cost of major legislation, something that,
candidly, Mr. Chairman, the CBO lacks both the expertise and experience
to be able to provide. So though it's commendable, I don't think it has
a thing to do with the underlying bill.
I do believe there are some private sector solutions out there and
look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois, given that he
has agreed to withdraw his amendment in the future, as we move forward
to, again, do something that I believe to be commendable, and that is
to provide much more information for hardworking taxpayers as well.
And given that he has agreed to withdraw the amendment, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to give the gentleman an
opportunity to explain his point. I thank him for his willingness to
work on this issue together. I now withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, lines 20 through 22, strike ``.25 percent of the
current projected gross domestic product of the United
States'' and insert ``$5,000,000,000''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
{time} 1600
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me start by congratulating the Budget
Committee and the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill to the
floor. We need to have more honest budgeting, and this is a step in the
right direction. I plan to support it. I have long supported the use of
dynamic scoring in particular. I'm pleased to see this issue on the
floor today.
It's necessary to ensure that Congress has the most reliable
information possible. Not all tax cuts are created equal when it comes
to the ability to actually generate tax revenue, and I think that we
ought to recognize that, and that's what dynamic scoring is all about.
H.R. 3582 requires CBO to provide a supplemental dynamic analysis for
a bill with a gross budgetary impact greater than a quarter percent of
the U.S. gross domestic product in any fiscal year. Based on the
current GDP, I believe the threshold would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of $40 billion, meaning the dynamic scores would be
limited to bills with a gross impact of $40 billion a year.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that setting a trigger for a
supplemental macroeconomic analysis would have yielded dynamic scores
for somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple dozen bills introduced
last year, let alone the number that we considered. The amendment that
is ruled in order here would lower the threshold for requiring a
supplemental dynamic score to any legislation that would have a
budgetary impact greater than $5 billion in a year.
Now, I understand that there are concerns with setting the trigger
considerably lower than the quarter percent of GDP, including it would
mean that CBO would have considerably more work to do. I am sensitive
to that. But I do think that we ought to set the standard a little
lower, or the trigger a little lower than $40 billion a year.
CBO scores hundreds of bills a year. This is a lot more analysis that
they would have to do, but I think it is important. But, as I
mentioned, I'm sensitive to the concerns that have been raised that
this would require too much work or too much additional work, which
might require additional staffing and everything else at the CBO, so
I'm prepared to withdraw this amendment. But I hope that, as this
process moves forward, we can set a standard or a threshold a little
lower than $40 billion a year. I think that that would benefit
lawmakers as we consider the impact of this legislation.
I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I'm happy to yield to my
[[Page H412]]
friend from Georgia the time that he might need.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for
yielding.
I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I want to commend
him for his wonderful work throughout his congressional career on the
fiscal responsibility appropriations process, having a more transparent
and fiscally responsible governance and a more open budgeting process
and more responsible budgeting process.
We both recognize the imperative of a greater dynamic analysis to the
legislation that we have coming before us. What the appropriate
threshold is, I think we're probably in the ballpark, but I'm happy to
work with the gentleman as we move forward with this legislation to
determine what that appropriate threshold is for legislation to be
considered in a macroeconomic fashion from CBO.
And I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and also appreciate him
working with me in the future.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say I support this
legislation. It's good legislation. I look forward to working with the
gentleman as we move ahead, and I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 112-383.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Jobs Score Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.
Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 653) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) an estimate of the number of jobs which would be
created, sustained, or lost in carrying out such bill or
resolution in the fiscal year in which it is to become
effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such
fiscal year, together with the basis for each such estimate,
and to the extent practicable, the analysis shall include
regional and State-level estimates of jobs that would be
created, sustained, or lost.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago when the
Republican conference was meeting to discuss changes to the rules of
the House for the 112th Congress, I offered a commonsense proposal. In
a letter I sent to the chairman of the Rules Committee in January of
2011, I shared my belief that our priority in this Congress must be to
enact legislation that will lead to job growth. I further stated that,
given our priority of job creation, the new rules of the 112th Congress
should require disclosure of the impact on job creation of any
legislation being considered by the full House. That was 1 year ago,
yet here we are today rehashing a seemingly age-old debate over
trickle-down economics.
While we debate back and forth about whether H.R. 3582, the Pro-
Growth Budgeting Act, is just another attempt to strengthen the case
for passing large tax cuts while minimizing the actual costs, back home
in my State, the State of Rhode Island, more than 60,000 men and women
are without jobs. While we debate a bill with dim prospects of ever
passing the Senate, more than 13 million Americans remain unemployed.
Just as many of you have seen in your own districts what I've seen
firsthand in my district, the toll that this recession has taken on our
families, our businesses, and our communities. My State was one of the
first States in the Northeast to be hit by the recession, and like many
other States, our recovery is slow; and with 10.8 percent unemployment,
the toll continues. That's why, 1 year later, I'm still here expressing
the same urgent need for Congress to understand, as we consider
legislation, whether our legislative actions will result in job
creation or job loss, and this is precisely what my amendment would do.
My amendment would strike the underlying language in H.R. 3582 and
replace it with the text of the Job Score Act, which I introduced
earlier in this session. This proposal would amend the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 to require that, in addition to cost estimates, the
Congressional Budget Office also prepare an estimate of the number of
jobs which would be created, sustained, or lost by enactment of the
legislation reported by the committee, including regional and State-
level estimates.
A companion to the Job Score Act has been introduced into the Senate
with bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats. A commonsense
approach, there's no voodoo economics in this amendment. There's no
controversial provisions requiring budget estimates that assume the
extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My
amendment would not require the inclusion of subjective and uncertain
macroeconomic feedback in revenue estimates. This amendment goes beyond
reviewing only major legislation and requires a jobs impact assessment
for every bill that requires a formal CBO score.
My amendment is simple, straightforward, and should be a proposal
that any Member who's serious about focusing on jobs can support.
Given these challenging economic times and their profound impact on
the lives of men, women, and families throughout America, we need to
ensure that the policies deliberated in Congress include an evaluation
of the impact on job creation. This amendment puts politics,
partisanship, and controversial economic policy aside.
Americans deserve to know whether the actions taken in Washington are
likely to result in job creation or job loss. My legislation will help
provide Congress with this vitally important assessment. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from Rhode Island says that this
is a simple proposition, and in that, he's correct. It's simply
terrible.
What he does with this amendment is to take away the entire
underlying bill, and then he has the audacity to say that the bill,
itself, does not provide any constructive information for Members.
So I guess what the Member is saying is that an estimate of changes
to economic output for legislation that we bring forward that is
significant and has a huge effect on the gross domestic product, I
guess that's not consequential. I guess that's not in order to be
considered. I guess that means that the gentleman doesn't think that
that affects unemployment.
Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, employment, on page 4, line 24 of the
legislation. I guess the gentleman thinks that that's not important,
that the dynamic consequences of legislation that's brought forward
here that has significant effect on GDP ought not be considered.
{time} 1610
I guess the gentleman believes it is tax revenue, not tax cuts, as I
have stated from this position all afternoon. Our friends on the other
side seem to believe--in fact, the gentleman said--the bill would
``assume the inclusion of tax cuts.''
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that assumes any
inclusion of tax cuts or of tax reductions or tax increases. All that
this says is, with legislation that has a significant effect on our
gross domestic product of .25 percent, which is about $40 billion, as
has been talked about, that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office--
our arm of the Congress that is providing us with information and is
able to give us the most information so that we can make the wisest
decisions--ought to look at these things in a dynamic way and look at
economic output, look at employment, look at tax revenues. Is it going
to be positive or negative? Is it going to affect the economy
positively or negatively? Would that we would
[[Page H413]]
have done that over the past number of years, Mr. Chairman, maybe we
would have made some better decisions.
So it is important for Members to appreciate that this amendment
strikes the entire bill and inserts in its place something that I
believe to be, for the bill, redundant but incredibly and remarkably
burdensome to the Congressional Budget Office. The macroeconomic
analysis required by the base bill already requires an analysis of the
effect of major legislation on employment and on labor supply.
The entire point of the bill is that Congress ought to consider and
have better information on the economic impact of major legislation
that's being considered. The extension of this jobs analysis to every
bill reported out of a House committee will generate an incredible
amount of work and burden.
For example, Mr. Chairman, we oftentimes get criticized for naming
post offices. We're going to assign somebody at the Congressional
Budget Office to determine the jobs impact of renaming a post office.
That's right. You talk about a redundant and worthless activity of the
Federal Government. This would be decreasing the efficiency of an
already remarkably inefficient process at a time when we're
appropriately decreasing spending at the Federal level, which--yes, Mr.
Chairman--also includes the Congressional Budget Office. They're above
where they were in the midportion of the last decade, but we're
beginning to get that spending under control. This bill would
indiscriminately add to the workload, and it would provide, really, no
new information to Members of Congress.
My friend from Rhode Island is correct. This is a simple amendment.
It is simply a terrible amendment, and it would completely end the
underlying piece of legislation.
So I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CICILLINE. The amendment that I've offered does substitute the
existing bill, and that's because, in fact, it is a terrible bill. And
that's why I proposed this amendment--to substitute it--to avoid what
the bill that is on the floor does.
It avoids the partisanship, the controversial economic policy for
which there is so much disagreement and which we've heard about for the
last hour. There is no hidden agenda as to high tax cuts while trying
to use as a baseline the Bush tax cuts. It puts aside all of the
disagreements about which we've just heard for 1 hour, and it uses
common sense.
I certainly suggest to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, that,
in fact, the single most important analysis we should be doing on every
single bill that the CBO does an analysis of is jobs. Will this bill
create jobs if we pass it? Will it cause the loss of jobs? That is the
most urgent responsibility we have in Congress right now. This bill
simply says that the analysis that should be done on every bill that
the CBO does is to ask: Will it create jobs? Will it cause the loss of
jobs? We would do that statewide and regionally.
Why is that information valuable?
Because we should be singularly focused on job creation. We should
avoid the kind of partisanship in disputes about trickle-down
economics, voodoo economics; about the tax policy and about using the
Bush tax cuts as the baseline. We need a commonsense approach that
simply says that Members of Congress should have the information and
should know does this create jobs or does it not before making a
decision.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman uses the
appropriate buzzwords: trickle-down, voodoo, partisanship, and all
that. The fact of the matter is that none of that is in this bill. What
is in this bill is an objective, commonsense, common ground attempt to
provide greater information to Members of Congress, and his amendment
strikes the entire underlying piece of legislation.
Again, at page 4, line 24, it calls on the CBO to address the issues
of dynamism as it relates to macroeconomic factors when bills are
coming to the floor--unemployment, unemployment, Mr. Chairman.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to adopt the
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in Part B of House Report
112-383 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Peters of Michigan.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Fudge of Ohio.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Peters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 244, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 24]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
[[Page H414]]
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Berg
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Filner
Hinchey
Kaptur
Mack
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Sires
{time} 1645
Messrs. GUINTA, GARY G. MILLER of California, CRAVAACK, SHUSTER and
McINTYRE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CLEAVER and COSTA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 24, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 24, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 237, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 25]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Berg
Canseco
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Filner
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Kaptur
LaTourette
Mack
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Schock
Sires
{time} 1649
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H415]]
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 25, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Fudge
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Fudge) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 243, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 26]
AYES--171
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Berg
Canseco
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Dicks
Filner
Garamendi
Hinchey
Kaptur
Mack
Miller (NC)
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sherman
Sires
Sullivan
{time} 1652
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 26, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have ``aye.''
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 26, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 243, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 27]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
[[Page H416]]
NOES--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Berg
Broun (GA)
Canseco
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Filner
Hinchey
Kaptur
Mack
Napolitano
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sires
Waters
{time} 1656
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 27, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BERG. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 27, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 245, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 28]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Filner
Hinchey
Kaptur
Mack
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sires
{time} 1701
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
[[Page H417]]
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 28, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The question is on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann,
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 534, reported the bill back to the House
with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr BOSWELL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Boswell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3582 to the
Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
After section 407(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as added by section 2, insert the following new
subsection (c) (and redesignate succeeding subsections
accordingly):
``(c) Impacts on Medicare Benefits, Beneficiaries, the
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.--The Director of
the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare for each major
bill or resolution reported by any committee of the House of
Representatives or the Senate (except the Committee on
Appropriations of each House), as a supplement to estimates
prepared under section 402, an impact analysis of the
budgetary effects of such bill or resolution on Medicare
benefits, beneficiaries, the Social Security and Medicare
Trust Funds for the ten fiscal year period beginning with the
first fiscal year for which an estimate was prepared under
section 402 and each of the next three ten fiscal-year
periods. The Director shall submit to such committee the
impact analysis, together with the basis for the analysis. As
a supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, all
such information so submitted shall be included in the report
accompanying such bill or resolution.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The passage of this
amendment will add protections for America's seniors to the bill. It
will not, I repeat, it will not prevent the passage of the underlying
bill. If it's adopted, the amendment will be incorporated in the bill,
and the bill will be immediately voted upon.
My motion to recommit will protect Medicare and Social Security
beneficiaries and repair, yes, repair the trust between seniors and
this body.
The Republican leadership has, for more than a year, promised that
slash-and-burn legislation would revitalize this Nation and empower
employers. Well, we're still waiting on millionaire job creators to
show us the jobs.
To date, we have seen nothing from the Republican Party that would
encourage job growth, stabilize the American family, or help seniors
pay for their Medicare. Instead, the policies we have seen attempt to
take from hardworking Americans the assistance they have been promised
and that they have paid into their entire working careers, throughout
their lives.
Last year we were promised legislation that would fuel job growth. We
ended up with a budget that would pay for a tax break for the wealthy
by dismantling Medicare. Instead of providing the benefits these
workers had earned, the Republican budget attempted to charge seniors
higher premium costs for fewer benefits.
Seniors were let down when this plan had enough Republican support to
pass the Chamber. Like me, again, seniors will be disheartened once
more when the Republican budget on the floor next month again attempts
to end Medicare.
Seniors have a right to know when their benefits are being cut or
when their Social Security trust funds are being drained. They should
not have to fear each day what this Chamber's leadership is going to do
to their benefits.
American seniors have the right to know. That is why we are offering
this amendment today, to ensure that Iowa's 450,000-plus seniors know
when legislation could tamper with their hard-earned benefits. This
amendment will side with our seniors by requiring an assessment of each
bill to show how it will affect the programs our seniors rely on.
Voting for this amendment will prove to the American seniors that you
are on their side and that you care about the programs that made this
country great. The greatest success of Medicare and Social Security is
that, in a time of need, these programs brought Americans over the age
of 60 out of poverty and ensured their access to care. These programs
honor America's work ethic and the communities that we build together.
This amendment would provide peace of mind by ensuring that any
attempt to change Social Security, Medicare, and the Medicare trust
fund will be reported to Congress and the public. Should a bill harm
the solvency of the trust fund, lessen the benefits owed to American
workers, or command seniors to pay more in premium costs, our seniors
will know.
Americans who are enrolled in Social Security and Medicare have paid
into these programs throughout their entire careers, and they have
helped to make this country what it is today. It is our
responsibility--our responsibility--to work together and preserve the
structure of Medicare.
We must provide America's seniors with a viable safety net and
insurance plan for their future. So I will fight to--continue to fight
for proposals that strengthen Medicare and the benefits that American
retirees have worked for throughout their lives.
I hope, again, I hope you will join me, and I urge all of my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have good news, good news for
my friend from Iowa. This isn't necessary. It's already done. The
Congressional Budget Office already prepares these macroanalyses any
time we consider legislation affecting these programs.
More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if you want to get the kind of
detailed analysis on how policy changes affect Medicare and Social
Security beneficiaries, that is done by the trustees, by the actuaries
at CMS and HHS and at Social Security, SSA, not by the CBO. But the
other part of the good news is they do that as well.
So what is good for us is that we do not need to pass this. It's
unnecessary. It's already done. CBO already produces this kind of
analysis, and the trustees at Medicare and Social Security produce it
at the very level that the gentleman from Iowa is hoping for.
I would be more than happy, whenever legislation comes up to the
House dealing with these issues, to provide that analysis and show it
to my friend from Iowa.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I think we've said enough. I don't want to
consume all the 5 minutes. There's no point in passing this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1710
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H418]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote. The Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes any electronic vote on the question of
passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 237, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Filner
Hinchey
Hoyer
Mack
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sewell
Sires
{time} 1727
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 29, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 179, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 30]
AYES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--179
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
[[Page H419]]
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Filner
Hinchey
Mack
Pascrell
Paul
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Sires
Yoder
{time} 1734
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 30, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 2012, I missed
rollcall votes 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 because of
district business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall 21, ``no'' on rollcall 22, ``yes'' on rollcall 23, ``yes'' on
rollcall 24, ``yes'' on rollcall 25, ``yes'' on rollcall 26, ``yes'' on
rollcall 27, ``yes'' on rollcall 28, ``yes'' on rollcall 29, and ``no''
on rollcall 30.
personal explanation
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the Record that on
February 2, 2012, I missed the last seven rollcall votes of the day.
Had I been present I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
24, on the Peters Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 25, on the
Connolly Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 26, on the Fudge
Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 27, on the Jackson Lee
Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 28, on the Cicilline Amendment;
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 29, on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 3582;
``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 30, on H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting
Act of 2011.
____________________