[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H523-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1240
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3581, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING 
                        TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2012

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3581) to amend the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to increase 
     transparency in Federal budgeting, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Budget now printed in the bill, it shall be 
     in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-13. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. 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 in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  House Resolution 539 provides a structured rule for the consideration 
of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. This is 
another bill in a series of 10 bills that the Budget Committee is 
sending forward, Mr. Speaker, to try to align the kind of accounting 
and budgeting that we do in Washington with the kind of accounting and 
budgeting that happens in the real world. We know transparency and 
sound accounting matter. We know that it matters on Wall Street; we 
know that it matters on Main Street; and it matters right here between 
Independence and Constitution Avenues, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill has three primary provisions:
  Number one, it provides transparency by bringing off-budget items on-
budget. Now, for folks who don't follow this as closely as you and I 
do, Mr. Speaker, you know that when things are off-budget, their degree 
of scrutiny is changed. When things are off-budget, the impact they 
have on the American taxpayer is not always reflected. When we take 
those things from off-budget and bring them on-budget, we begin to show 
the American taxpayer the real cost of their risk and responsibility.
  Number two, it reforms the accounting method that we use to calculate 
how at risk American taxpayers are under Federal credit programs, 
again, to bring us closer to private sector models. Mr. Speaker, as you 
well know, when a dollar goes out the door from this United States 
Capitol, when a dollar goes out the door from the United States 
Treasury, if it is a loan program, there is no guarantee that dollar 
comes back. Are most folks faithful payers? Yes, they are. But does 
every dollar come back? No, it doesn't. Do we need to look further than 
Fannie and Freddie to see that model? For the first time, we'll begin 
to account for that risk so that the American taxpayer understands when 
the their American government guarantees a loan what potential impact 
that has on their pocketbook at home.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it requires all Federal agencies to post their 
budget justifications online in a timely manner. Now, you saw last 
week, Mr. Speaker, we were able to pass the Baseline Reform Act, which 
said no longer will we just assume every agency is

[[Page H524]]

going to spend more. For the first time, we say that every agency needs 
to justify any increases that they receive in their budget. What this 
provision does is go one step further to say, when you are producing 
that budget, post your justifications online. Let the American people 
in. Mr. Speaker, if we have nothing to hide in this institution, then 
continuing to publish more and more information so that the American 
people can come into this discussion process is only going to lead us 
in the right direction.
  Taken together, these three reforms bring the kind of attention that 
we need to a budget process that has been long broken. We cannot make 
America's future brighter and more secure if we continue to escalate 
the debt that we pass on to our children and their grandchildren. 
Clearly, this body has struggled in years past to contain that debt on 
both sides of the aisle. Clearly, folks occupying 1600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue have struggled to contain that debt on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks who see these issues with clarity live back 
home in my Seventh District of Georgia. They understand what it means 
to do budgeting around the family dinner table. I know my colleague 
from Massachusetts has those same folks living in his district facing 
those same challenges in his district; and if we can bring those people 
into the discussion, Mr. Speaker, if we can just be honest with our 
constituents back home about the magnitude of the problem, we will have 
their support and their involvement to turn this page for America's 
financial future.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't stick our heads in the sand. Next week, we're 
expecting the budget from the White House to arrive here on Capitol 
Hill. We were expecting it this week, and they've delayed it to next 
week. I'm excited about it. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Speaker, I believe we're going to have a serious budget discussion 
with the White House for the first time in the 3 years of this 
administration. We're going to have a serious budget dropped on our 
doorstep, and then the Budget Committee is going to be involved in a 
serious discussion about how to bring the White House's priorities and 
the House's priorities in line with the American people's priorities. 
That process does not happen in a vacuum. That process happens in the 
sunshine, the bright daylight that is this U.S. House Chamber, Mr. 
Speaker. And with this reform combined with the other nine reforms 
coming out of the Budget Committee, we are taking steps forward to 
change forever the way this town does its budgeting business.
  I'm very proud to sit on both the Rules Committee and the Budget 
Committee, to have had a hand both in the underlying legislation and 
this resolution today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
resolution, Mr. Speaker, so that we can bring up the underlying bill.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee filed House Report 112-388, a report 
to accompany House Resolution 539, a resolution providing for 
consideration of H.R 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act 
of 2011. The report inadvertently excluded an explanation of the waiver 
of all points of order contained in the resolution against the 
amendments printed in the report. The Committee on Rules is not aware 
of any points of order against any of the amendments printed in the 
Rules Committee report. The waiver of all points of order against the 
amendments printed in the report is prophylactic in nature.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by urging a ``no'' vote on 
this rule, which is not open, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill. 
The bill before us does nothing to improve the quality of life for any 
American. It doesn't create a single job. Not one job is created by 
this bill we're talking about today. This bill is going nowhere in the 
United States Senate. I don't believe this is a serious effort and, in 
short, we're wasting our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress this enough. Congress must keep our 
focus on the most important priority facing the American people, and 
that is jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs. Democrats may sound like a broken 
record, but that's because we know that the core issue of our time is 
the economy and jobs. We need to do more to make sure that America's 
businesses get back on track and that the American people are in a 
position to succeed when these businesses start to hire.
  Now, we had some good news last week. The unemployment rate decreased 
for the fifth month in a row, falling to 8.3 percent.

                              {time}  1250

  At the same time, we've had 5 straight months of job creation, and 
we're in the 23rd consecutive month of private sector growth.
  The economy looks like it's rebounding; and if this trend holds, 
that's a good thing. But while private sector employers added 257,000 
jobs in January, there was a loss of 14,000 government jobs, including 
11,000 local government jobs. Now, the reason for that, Mr. Speaker, 
quite frankly, is because the Federal Government is cutting away and 
State governments are cutting away and these so-called ``government 
jobs'' are being eliminated--the jobs that my friends on the other side 
of the aisle like to demonize. But what are these local government 
jobs? Mr. Speaker, these are cops, firefighters, teachers, librarians, 
and trash collectors. They're not faceless bureaucrats. They are people 
who make our lives safer, better, and cleaner every day. And they're 
our neighbors and our friends and our family members.
  So despite the relatively good news about the improving economy, we 
are clearly not where we need to be. Payroll employment is still 5.6 
million jobs short of where it was at the beginning of the Great 
Recession of December of 2007. There are four jobless workers for every 
job opening and long-term unemployment is still at historic high 
levels.
  It is clear that this rebound, as slow and painstaking as it is, is 
taking place in spite of House Republicans and in spite of their 
policies, not because of them. In fact, I believe actions taken and 
policies voted on by this House have slowed down this economic 
recovery, have slowed down this economy, and have prevented a faster 
and more robust recovery.
  For example, congressional Republicans should be doing all they can 
to prevent a tax increase on middle class Americans. Congressional 
Republicans should be doing all they can to extend unemployment 
insurance for people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. 
Yet, Mr. Speaker, they have continued to drag their feet on this 
legislation and, in fact, continue to bicker among themselves about the 
need to extend these programs. This should be a no-brainer. This should 
be something that both sides should come together and be able to 
improve immediately. Yet it has become this theater, this drama that 
plays out; and nobody quite knows how it's going to end.
  Mr. Speaker, we're one week into February, more than 1 month into the 
new year, more than 13 months into this new Republican-controlled 
Congress; and we have yet to see one meaningful jobs bill. No wonder 
Congress' approval rating is at historic lows. And instead of bringing 
legislation to the floor that would help the economy--like a clean 
extension of the payroll tax and unemployment insurance--the GOP would 
rather bring up misguided budget bills that simply attempt to rig the 
budget rules so they can score cheap political points.
  House Republicans are simply trying to change the rules of the game 
to benefit their own point of view. This bill today, the so-called 
Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, is another sham bill in the 
Republican leadership's quest to change the rules of budgeting. This 
may seem like inside baseball to some, but it really is something quite 
extraordinary.
  Simply, the Republicans, with this bill, are attempting to 
artificially inflate the cost of Federal credit programs. They do so by 
changing the way government credit programs are calculated. The Federal 
budget is supposed to count the amount of money that is spent and the 
revenue received. If there is more money coming in than going out, it's 
a surplus. The opposite is a deficit. What the Republican leadership is 
trying to do with this bill is

[[Page H525]]

to recalculate the way these credit programs are scored, or counted, in 
the budget process, automatically making them more expensive. They do 
so by treating government credit programs in a similar way to private 
credit programs, even though they are treated differently by the 
markets.
  Now, on top of changing the way these credit programs are scored, 
it's important to point out that this bill doesn't apply to all Federal 
programs. In other words, we would have one set of scoring rules for 
one set of Federal programs and another one just for the Federal credit 
programs. That doesn't make any sense to me.
  If some of these recent budget bills are any indication, the House 
Republican leadership cares more about rigging the budget process just 
to dismantle the Federal safety net instead of actually working to 
reduce the deficit and at the same time spur job creation.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be talking about jobs. We should be acting on 
the President's jobs plan. Our committee work should be focused on how 
do we get this economy running again. What should be on the floor today 
is not a bill that's going nowhere, but a bill that will help put 
people back to work. You know, if we put more people back to work and 
this economy begins to recover more, then we can grow out of this 
deficit.
  I would just, again, urge the Republican leadership to stop bringing 
stuff to the floor that really, I believe, is a waste of our time. 
Bring things to the floor that are meaningful, that will make a 
difference in the lives of the American people, that will improve the 
quality of lives for people in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the 
underlying bill and to put our focus back where it belongs, creating a 
stronger economy for the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I always look for those 
areas of agreement because I know that we have some. I had a tough time 
finding those areas of agreement in that particular presentation, but 
when you got to your discussion about the theater that takes place on 
this House floor, I began to feel that personal bond, Mr. Speaker, 
because this feels like theater to me.
  This is a rule that my friend is urging a ``no'' vote on that does 
one thing and one thing only: it brings to the floor a budget-changing 
provision that will shine more of a spotlight on what it is this 
Congress does when it comes to spending the American people's money. It 
does one thing and one thing only, and that is to give the American 
taxpayer more insight into what it is that my colleagues and I are 
doing with the money that we have taken from them.
  Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, well, what if I oppose that 
sunshine? What if I don't want daylight in the process? What if I have 
some things up here that I don't want folks to know I'm doing with 
their money? Fair enough. You can vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. 
But this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule, which governs the debate on the 
House floor, has made in order every single Democratic amendment that 
was germane to the underlying legislation. Hear that. Hear that.
  For folks who don't like the way the bill was crafted--of course we 
had a full hearing and markup in the Budget Committee--but for folks 
who don't like the way that bill came out, sometimes Congresses in the 
past would just shove a bill to the floor and say take it or leave it. 
But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is coming to the floor with a rule that 
said, tell me, colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, tell me how it is 
that we can make this bill better, and every single idea and suggestion 
that was germane to the underlying bill this rule makes in order.
  So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why vote ``no'' on this rule? If you don't 
like the underlying legislation, vote ``no'' on the underlying 
legislation. But this rule is a rule that this entire House can be 
proud of, and I'm proud to be able to carry it for the Rules Committee 
today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The reason why people should vote ``no'' on this rule is because it's 
not an open rule, number one. The other reason why people should vote 
``no'' on this rule is because it enables bad behavior, and the bad 
behavior is bringing up bills that are going nowhere that aren't very 
serious.
  What we should be bringing to the floor right now is a clean 
extension of the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and the 
extension of unemployment insurance. That's what we should be talking 
about. That's what should be on the floor right now. Instead, that 
measure, which would actually help people, is bogged down in conference 
because of ideological battles that my right-wing friends choose to 
wage. What we should be doing on this floor is putting the American 
people back to work and helping grow this economy through creating more 
jobs.
  The bill before us does nothing to address the critical challenges 
facing America's families. It doesn't create a single job. It does 
nothing to address our serious budgetary challenges. This bill does not 
increase revenues or reduce spending. It does nothing to cut this 
deficit. We are sitting here talking about something that really, 
again, is going nowhere and that really doesn't matter in the scheme of 
things. We should be talking about jobs and how we get this economy 
moving again.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  The month the President took office, the U.S. economy was in the 
midst of a horrible collapse into oblivion for a lot of American 
families. The economy lost 700,000 jobs the month the President took 
office.
  Last Friday, we had the news that the economy gained over a quarter 
of a million private sector jobs. This is welcome news, but we have a 
lot of work to do. This is not nearly sufficient to restore the 
American Dream to America's middle class and really fuel the kind of 
recovery that we need.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, the President came to this floor 152 days ago with specific 
ideas that both parties had agreed to over the years, to try to fuel 
the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the fuel of the American 
economy. And he came to the floor with four ideas. The first was to cut 
taxes for small businesses that hire people, something people on both 
sides say they're for. We've never taken a vote on that idea, never 
since then.
  Second, he came to the floor with an idea that, as teachers are being 
laid off from the classroom, and firefighters are being laid off from 
our first responders, and police officers are being taken off the 
street, why don't we help the cities and towns and States to keep some 
of those people on the job, not only so they can do their job, but so 
they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants and help small 
businesses. We have never taken a vote on that idea in those 152 days.
  The third thing the President said is, let's put construction workers 
back to work building libraries of the future for our schools, 
repairing the crumbling roads and bridges of the country, making sure 
rural America's wired for the Internet. And those construction workers 
would then become the customers of the small stores and the 
restaurants, the appliance stores that make America go. We have never 
taken a vote on that idea in the last 152 days.
  And finally, the President said, let's avoid a massive tax increase 
on the middle class people of this country that was scheduled to go 
into effect on January 1 of this year. Well, we sort of took a vote on 
that and were able to dredge out of that process a 2-month extension to 
avoid that massive tax increase. That extension ends 22 days from 
today. In the 2 months since then, there's not been one proposal on the 
floor to fix that problem.
  What we have on the floor today is a very interesting bill, and I, 
frankly, commend the seriousness of it. The bill essentially says we 
should re-examine the method by which we value guarantees issued by the 
Federal Government when we account for them in our budgets. In other 
words, if you cosign a note

[[Page H526]]

for someone, how should that show up on your balance sheet? That's 
essentially what this bill is about.
  Now, this is a serious question. But I think the unemployed carpenter 
and the small business owner about to close her store and the police 
officer who got his pink slip last week thinks it's a pretty irrelevant 
question. And what they would rather have us do is vote ``yes'' or 
``no'' on cutting taxes for small businesses that create jobs. We vote 
``yes.''
  ``Yes'' or ``no'' on putting police officers, firefighters, teachers 
back to work. We vote ``yes.''
  ``Yes'' or ``no'' on helping the middle class by avoiding a massive 
tax increase on the American people. ``Yes'' or ``no.''
  What we ought to be doing is bringing those questions to the floor, 
those questions to the floor, and having a debate. Instead, we're 
having a debate that's serious, but it really belongs at the American 
Society of CPAs, not the House of Representatives.
  Let's get to work on the questions we're hearing at home, ``yes'' or 
``no.'' We say ``yes'' to fueling the middle class job creators, the 
small businesses of this country. The majority responds with silence.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say I agree with the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that we 
must move jobs legislation out of this U.S. House of Representatives, 
on to the United States Senate and on to the White House.
  This is a budget reform bill that, as the gentleman accurately 
stated, is a serious bill to address a serious problem. We didn't do 
this in January of last year, our very first term in office. Then we 
were working on repealing the President's health care bill, which 
remains a national priority.
  We didn't do this last April when we were focused on presenting the 
first serious budget that dealt seriously with the underlying debt 
drivers, those entitlement programs, for the first time since 1965. We 
didn't deal with these issues while we were trying to continue to fund 
this government through a regular appropriations process, a process 
that hadn't taken place in over three years.
  We have brought this bill to the floor today. What were we doing in 
the intervening time, Mr. Speaker? We were working on jobs. We were 
working on jobs, because I agree with the gentleman, that is something 
we must focus on.
  Reducing regulatory burdens sits with the Senate. Energy Tax 
Prevention Act sits with the Senate. Consumer Financial Protection and 
Soundness Improvement Act sits with the Senate. Small Company Capital 
Formation Act sits with the Senate. I could go on and on and on 
consuming all of our, time because the gentleman is right. Jobs are the 
priority. And this House and this leadership and this Congress has made 
it a priority. But to what end, Mr. Speaker? To what end?
  Will we stop focusing on this national priority? Absolutely not. Will 
we continue bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor that 
speaks to the needs of American families? You'd better believe it.
  But will we abdicate our responsibility? Mr. Speaker, I've got cards 
aplenty in my pocket. One of them's the United States Constitution. Do 
you know where the responsibility to budget comes from, Mr. Speaker?
  This wasn't a power grab, like so many things that go on in this 
House where we're removing power from the American people. This is a 
constitutionally delineated responsibility of this House. And I will 
not apologize for being down here focusing on those things that the 
Constitution requires us to focus on.
  Now, that said, it's a fair question to say, but Rob, this is a small 
bill. This is a small bill. You know what? A lot of folks might take 
that as an insult, Mr. Speaker. I'm flattered by it because, as I have 
watched this process, we have seen too many giant resolutions,
1,000-, 2,000-, 3,000-, 4,000-page resolutions come to this floor.
  Is that practice gone forever? I suspect we'll see another 
monstrosity come our way. I hope not, but I suspect we will. But in the 
interim, we can do better.
  On the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, we actually had that 
discussion. This is 10 separate pieces of legislation. My colleague 
from New Jersey earlier was saying we want up-or-down votes on this 
floor. We want yes-or-no votes on this floor. I share his passion, and 
that's what we've done.
  Instead of bringing a giant, omnibus budget reform bill that had lots 
of different things tied into it, Mr. Speaker, we've decided to bring 
one idea at a time, just one, one idea at a time, and allow this House, 
the people's House, to have that yes-or-no vote on whether or not this 
is an idea that has merit.
  I appreciate my colleague's statement that this is a serious bill to 
confront a serious issue. And I will tell you, and it has developed 
more meaning to me, Mr. Speaker, since I have been a Member in this 
House for the last 12 months--it was Edmund Burke, he was a colleague 
of ours on the other side of the pond in the House of Commons, and a 
huge supporter of the American Revolution. And he said this: No one 
made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do 
a little. No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because 
he could only do a little.
  I confess, Mr. Speaker, I was a little naive when I showed up here as 
a freshman last January. I thought I was going to be able to fix it. I 
thought my colleagues and I, you and I, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle and I, working together, I thought we were going to be 
able to fix it. It's taken a little longer than I thought. Those big 
bites at the apple have not been as successful as I hoped.
  Have we passed them here? Yes. Has the Senate moved on them and sent 
them to the President? No.
  So we changed gears, bringing the little ideas to the floor, those 
little ideas that, as my colleague from New Jersey mentioned, are 
serious reform proposals.
  I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud of these underlying 
proposals, and I'm proud of this rule that makes them in order. To be 
clear, it's a little unheard of in this House, and it's happened on 
both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike have used this 
floor for their own devices.
  This rule makes in order every single idea and suggestion that's 
germane to the underlying bill that was brought by either Republicans 
or Democrats. What's better than that? What's fairer than that? What is 
more American than that?
  I understand, I know the Rules Committee has some tough decisions to 
make up there, and occasionally a closed rule comes to this floor. I'm 
generally grimacing as much as anybody when that happens. I believe in 
the openness of this process.
  But to say, send me all of your ideas and suggestions, Mr. Speaker, 
send them all to the Rules Committee, and for the Rules Committee to 
say, anything that's germane, we've made in order today, Mr. Speaker--
this is not a resolution to vote ``no'' on. This is the rule, not just 
a rule, this is the rule to come to the House floor and cast a proud 
``yes'' vote for today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers 
he has?
  Mr. WOODALL. We have no speakers remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will close for our side.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will agree with my colleague on the Rules Committee that what is 
before us today is a small idea. The fact is that we have some big 
problems in this country and they require big and bold solutions, like 
extending the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans.
  Mark Zandi, a Republican economist who worked for John McCain, said 
that if we don't extend the payroll tax cut it might cost as many as 
500,000 jobs in this country.
  It is a little bit puzzling to me--and I think to the American people 
who are observing this--that rather than bringing that bill to the 
floor or rather than bringing bills to the floor that will help enact 
the President's jobs program or any kind of bill that will help put 
people back to work, we are dealing with this, which my friend on the 
other side of the aisle said is a small thing, a small idea.

[[Page H527]]

  I think we can do better. I think the American people are expecting 
us to do much better. We should be having a debate on our manufacturing 
agenda. We need to get a tax structure in place that encourages 
manufacturing investment here in this country. We should be eliminating 
tax incentives and loopholes that encourage financial speculation--
rather than investment--and outsourcing and offshoring their production 
and enact tax incentives for companies that produce domestically. That 
is the kind of bill we should be having on the floor right now, a 
recommitment to investing in our infrastructure.
  I was hoping that we would have a transportation bill that would be 
worth supporting; but by all accounts, the transportation bill has 
become such a monstrosity that people on both sides of the aisle are 
opposed to it.
  The LA Times did an editorial saying that the House Republican 
leadership unveiled its version of the 5-year transportation bill. It 
isn't just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan that it has no 
chance of being approved by the Democrat controlled Senate; it is that 
it is less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil 
lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they have been 
decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the Reason Foundation, 
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Taxpayers for Common 
Sense. I guess next week and the week after we're going to be bringing 
that bill to the floor.
  Again, I don't think anybody here thinks that that is going to see 
the light of day, which means that it's not going to create jobs; it's 
not going to put people back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record the LA Times 
editorial and two editorials from The New York Times.

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3, 2012]

               In the House, a Transportation Train Wreck

       After Congress pushed the nation to the verge of 
     catastrophe last year by delaying a deal to raise the debt 
     ceiling until the eleventh hour, our capacity to be surprised 
     by that body's irresponsible gamesmanship was somewhat 
     diminished. And yet, we still can't help but be awe-struck by 
     the mess the House of Representatives is preparing to make of 
     the federal transportation bill, a key legislative priority 
     for both parties.
       On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership unveiled its 
     version of the five-year bill. It isn't just that this bill 
     is so thoroughly partisan that it has no chance of being 
     approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate; it's that it is 
     less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil 
     lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they 
     have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the 
     Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and 
     Taxpayers for Common Sense.
       What's so bad about it? The bill slashes funding for 
     inexpensive but worthwhile programs to improve biking and 
     walking safety, cuts funding for Amtrak by 25% and runs 
     roughshod over federal regulations aimed at protecting 
     communities and the environment from the negative effects of 
     transportation projects. But what's far worse is the GOP 
     scheme for helping to fund the bill's $260 billion worth of 
     infrastructure improvements over the next five years: opening 
     up vast swaths of currently protected land to oil drilling.
       Logically and politically, this makes no sense. On the 
     logic front, it can't work. Three bills under consideration 
     in the House that are intended to fund the transportation 
     bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
     drilling, mandate oil shale leasing on federal lands and 
     expand offshore drilling in sensitive areas. Yet even if 
     drilling were allowed in these places, it would be many years 
     before significant revenues started rolling in to the 
     government, and it's difficult to predict how much money 
     would be generated, making advance construction planning 
     impossible. Moreover, oil shale development is an unproven 
     technology that may never generate a dime. And politically, 
     drilling in such places as the Alaskan refuge is rightly a 
     nonstarter.
       If it weren't already abundantly clear that this bill is 
     intended simply to pander to the GOP base during an election 
     year, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) seasoned the red meat 
     by promising to attach a rider mandating approval of the 
     controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the biggest political 
     football this side of the Super Bowl and an issue utterly 
     unrelated to the purposes of the transportation bill.
       If this is how congressional Republicans think they're 
     going to win the November elections, they might want to check 
     their approval ratings. Americans are thoroughly sick of a 
     Congress that would rather play political games than solve 
     our country's problems.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 6, 2012]

                         The Payroll Tax Fight

       Republicans in Congress seem to have forgotten the 
     embarrassment they suffered late last year for trying to 
     block a payroll tax cut for millions of wage-earners. The 
     two-month extension they reluctantly approved will run out in 
     three weeks, yet, again, they are stalling a full-year's tax 
     cut with extraneous issues and political ploys.
       The need for the 2-percentage-point payroll tax break is as 
     great now as it was in December. Without it, 160 million 
     people who get paychecks would have to pay the government 
     nearly $1,000 more. The increase would severely reduce growth 
     and derail the slow-moving economic recovery. Failure to 
     agree on a tax cut would also cut off unemployment benefits 
     for tens of thousands of workers in many of the hardest-hit 
     states.
       Politically, however, extending the tax break would 
     represent a victory for President Obama, who has been 
     championing it. That remains intolerable to many Republicans, 
     particularly in the House. So they are insisting on several 
     extraneous provisions that have nothing to do with a tax cut 
     for the middle class, hoping either to achieve a few 
     ideological victories for themselves or force negotiations 
     with Democrats to a standstill.
       At the behest of the manufacturing lobby, for example, 
     Republican negotiators still want to delay an environmental 
     regulation that would require industrial boilers and 
     incinerators to release less mercury, lead and soot. What 
     does that have to do with the payroll tax cut? Nothing, of 
     course; Republicans are simply trying to get Democrats to pay 
     a price for something they want.
       They also want to require the jobless to be in G.E.D. 
     programs and to undergo drug testing to get benefits, two 
     punitive measures designed to stigmatize the desperate. And 
     they still want a provision reviving the Keystone XL oil 
     pipeline, hoping to fool voters into believing that Democrats 
     who oppose it are somehow against jobs--even though the 
     pipeline will create a very small number of long-term jobs. 
     (The two sides have also failed to agree on how to prevent a 
     cut in Medicare payments to doctors, which could drive many 
     of them from the program.)
       The biggest outstanding question, as it was last year, is 
     how to pay for the tax cut for the next 10 months, which 
     would cost about $90 billion. The best idea was still the 
     original Democratic proposal, rejected by Republicans, to 
     impose a surcharge on taxpayers who make more than $1 million 
     a year. Democrats are now considering cutting corporate 
     loopholes and using some savings from winding down the wars 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no pressing need to offset 
     the jobless benefits, which Republicans did not do when they 
     held power in previous decades.
       Republicans, on the other hand, are only interested in 
     extending the tax benefits for working Americans if they can 
     punish other groups. They want to extend the freeze on wages 
     for federal workers to a third consecutive year, and appeal 
     to their base by barring the use of welfare debit cards at 
     casinos and strip clubs. This is hardly a national problem; a 
     few states have allowed that, but most have cracked down on 
     it.
       Republicans seem no more serious about cutting the tax and 
     stimulating the economy than they were in December. They may 
     be furious that President Obama is campaigning against a do-
     nothing Congress, but they don't seem as if they're planning 
     to actually do something.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 3, 2012]

             Job Gains Reflect Hope a Recovery Is Blooming

                            (By Motoko Rich)

       The front wheels have lifted off the runway. Now, Americans 
     are waiting to see if the economy can truly get aloft.
       With the government reporting that the unemployment rate 
     and the number of jobless fell in January to the lowest 
     levels since early 2009, the recovery seems finally to be 
     reaching American workers.
       The Labor Department's latest snapshot of the job market, 
     released on Friday, makes clear that employers have been 
     hiring more in recent months, with 243,000 net new jobs in 
     January. The unemployment rate now stands at 8.3 percent, 
     down from 8.5 percent a month earlier and from 9.1 percent as 
     recently as last August.
       Economists were encouraged, though they expect some fits 
     and starts along the road to recovery.
       ``I do think we're at the point where we're in a self-
     sustaining, positive reinforcing picture,'' said Stuart G. 
     Hoffman, chief economist for the PNC Financial Services 
     Group.
       Stocks rallied on the brightening outlook, reaching 
     multiyear highs.
       The report revealed job gains not just for the last month 
     but for previous months. December job growth was revised to 
     203,000, from the original 200,000. The job gains for 
     November, originally 100,000 jobs, were revised upward to 
     157,000, creating a picture of a job market that has been 
     gathering steam.
       The private sector remained the engine of growth. While 
     federal agencies and local governments continued to lay off 
     workers, businesses added 257,000 net new jobs in January. 
     The biggest gains were in manufacturing, professional and 
     business services, and leisure and hospitality.
       Despite the promising numbers, various indicators create an 
     ambiguous picture of the overall economic recovery.
       Layoffs appear to be slowing as fewer people are filing 
     claims for unemployment benefits, and factory orders have 
     picked up.

[[Page H528]]

       Small businesses, though, are still not hiring much. And 
     while sales of existing homes have started to rise, home 
     prices continue to fall. Incomes are not growing and consumer 
     spending is still restrained, and could come under further 
     pressure with gas prices edging higher in recent months and 
     as consumers revert to building up savings.
       Seasonal factors may have inflated January hiring numbers 
     in some industries, like restaurants or construction.
       Steve Blitz, senior economist for ITG Investment Research, 
     said the report nevertheless revealed strong increases in 
     manufacturing and related job categories, like transportation 
     and warehousing and wholesale trade. ``You've got to give 
     credit when things are moving in the right direction,'' said 
     Mr. Blitz, who has been cautious in heralding a recovery. 
     ``This is not a process that is going to be done in a month 
     or two months or a year. It could take five or 10 years to 
     get there.''
       Others were unconvinced that the recent pace of job growth 
     would be sustained, pointing to moderate consumer spending 
     and mild economic growth, 1.7 percent last year.
       ``The problem is that there is this bifurcation here in the 
     numbers,'' said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at 
     the Economic Outlook Group. ``On the one hand we see rather 
     impressive job growth, but on the other hand we're also 
     seeing other economic indicators that are telling us that the 
     economy is fundamentally weak.''
       Mr. Baumohl added, ``We're going to have to really very 
     carefully dig deep below the surface for these and a lot of 
     other economic statistics to find a consistency of what is 
     happening in the U.S. economy.''
       The unemployment rate appeared to be falling because people 
     were genuinely securing jobs rather than merely leaving the 
     work force. The Labor Department adjusted its data to account 
     for new population estimates from the 2010 Census.
       Accounting for those adjustments, the labor force had a net 
     gain of 250,000 people in January from a month earlier. 
     Although the pool of unemployed people has been shrinking, 
     the number remains high--12.8 million--about equal to the 
     population of Pennsylvania, and long-term unemployment is one 
     of the most crushing legacies of this recent recession. For 
     January, the Labor Department reported that 5.5 million 
     people had been out of work for six months or more, about 43 
     percent of the jobless.
       And according to an analysis of December's job numbers 
     released this week by the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative, 
     nearly a third of the jobless have been unemployed for a year 
     or more.
       Underemployment is another stubborn problem. The number of 
     people working part time because they cannot find full-time 
     work was 8.2 million in January. Including that group and the 
     1.1 million who stopped looking for work altogether, and the 
     broader measure of unemployment was 15.1 percent.
       ``You have an interesting situation where you have some 
     permanent part-time workers,'' said John Silvia, chief 
     economist at Wells Fargo. ``These people are in jobs and the 
     jobs are not likely to become full time.''
       Sandy Pochapin, a 54-year-old former marketing manager, was 
     laid off for the second time last May from a small business 
     in Newton, Mass. Just before the start of the year she picked 
     up a part-time job as a media consultant at an advertising 
     agency. Her husband, a real estate lawyer, has also 
     experienced severe cutbacks in his income.
       The couple, who are now paying three times what they were 
     paying for health care before Ms. Pochapin lost her job, have 
     cut back on dinners out, and she said that replacing her 
     eight-year-old Toyota Highlander was ``not in the cards.'' 
     More painfully, the couple have dipped into their college-age 
     son's educational fund to keep up with mortgage payments and 
     other expenses.
       Ms. Pochapin, a member of several networking groups, 
     compiles job leads and recently sent out a list with more 
     openings than she had ever seen. ``I would say things are 
     picking up,'' she said. ``But where they're picking up is not 
     where people who have been unemployed long term have 
     skills.'' She noted many openings for jobs in mobile 
     marketing and for digital media specialists.
       Indeed, one of the perennial complaints of employers is 
     that they cannot find qualified workers. Ancestry.com, a 
     genealogy Web site in Provo, Utah, has openings for 150 
     engineers, data mining specialists and developers of mobile 
     apps. ``While we find a lot of people who are unemployed,'' 
     said Eric Shoup, a senior vice president, ``they are not the 
     people who bring the skill sets we need for our business.''
       He said the company did virtually all its hiring away from 
     other companies.
       Economists are beginning to worry about the self-fulfilling 
     nature of long-term unemployment. ``It's almost starting to 
     look like there are two job markets,'' said Cliff Waldman, 
     the economist at the Manufacturers Alliance, a trade group. 
     ``Long-term unemployment is very sticky.''

  Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to see signs of hope in our economy. 
What we should be is the wind at the backs of businesses and workers in 
this country to try to enact policies that will help get this economy 
stronger, that will help create more jobs, that will help put people 
back to work. We're not doing that today.
  I'm saying vote against the rule because it is not an open rule. I'm 
also saying vote against the rule to send a signal to the Republican 
leadership: Enough. Let's start bringing serious things to this floor, 
for example, the extension of the payroll tax cut for middle class 
families and the unemployment extension for those who are unemployed 
through no fault of their own. That's what we should be doing here, and 
we're not, so it's frustrating.
  I guess we will waste the day doing this on a bill that goes nowhere, 
but I hope sooner rather than later that the Republican leadership will 
finally understand the American people want us to focus on jobs.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to end where I began, and that is in agreement with my colleague. He 
says we should be the wind at the back of small business. Nothing could 
be truer. Nothing could be more true.
  I don't believe that presiding over the largest regulatory expansion 
in the history of America is fulfilling the promise of being the wind 
at the back. That is wind in the face of American small businesses.
  I don't believe that presiding over the largest tax increase in 
American history counts as being the wind at the back of U.S. small 
business. I think that's a wind in the face of those small businesses.
  I do not believe that a new health care mandate is the wind at the 
back of small businesses. I believe that's a wind in the face of small 
businesses.
  But I take great comfort in knowing that while there may be all of 
those issues that divide us, there are principles that unite us. We 
should, in fact, be the wind at the back of small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule that makes in order every single idea to 
improve the underlying legislation, this budget reform rule is honest 
with the American people for the first time in my lifetime.
  You know, we hear so much talk about the payroll tax, Mr. Speaker. I 
know you're familiar with the way that accounting works. When folks 
pay--and for those of us in Congress, for everybody back home, it's 
15.3 percent of your paycheck. 15.3 percent out of every paycheck-
receiving American's pocket goes to the payroll tax, which goes to fund 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Under the clever accounting rules that the Congress and the President 
have so eloquently crafted, when I pay my 15.3 percent out of my 
paycheck every month, when every American worker, Mr. Speaker, pays 
their 15.3 percent, with the expectation that Medicare will be there 
for them when they retire, with the expectation that Social Security 
will be there for them when they retire, when we all contribute, the 
clever accounting rules here on Capitol Hill call that a credit. That's 
a credit to the United States Government's Treasury. It does not 
account for it as a debit because now folks have promised to have 
Social Security and Medicare there for me when I turn 67. It counts as 
a credit, Mr. Speaker.
  When we hire a new Federal employee, every new Federal employee we 
hire, Mr. Speaker, when they pay out of their monthly check to the 
Federal Employees Retirement System, that pension that's available to 
every Federal Government employee, that payment that they make into the 
pension program is counted as a credit. It's as if the more Federal 
employees we hire, the more money we'll make for America. No, because 
with every year of payment into that system, they get something very 
large out.
  This is not news to any business owner in America, Mr. Speaker. This 
is not news to any business owner in America. They have to do this 
accounting every day. You want to talk about the crooks on Wall Street; 
if Wall Street accounted the way the Federal Government does its 
accounting, they would in fact be crooks and they would in fact all be 
in jail. It's unconscionable.
  The wool that we pull--and we're all complicit in it, have been for 
years. The wool that we pull over the eyes of the American taxpayer--
and kudos to this Budget Committee and, candidly, to this budget 
chairman. Chairman Paul Ryan and the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Chairman David Dreier, have been working on fundamental budget reform 
for a decade. And

[[Page H529]]

why it is that neither party has had the courage to bring this forward 
until now I do not know, but I stand here with pride to be associated 
with it today.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to create jobs, call your Senator. Call your 
Senator from your home State, Mr. Speaker, and share with them the 
importance of moving the pro jobs agenda that is sitting on their 
doorstep. I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I wouldn't hold it against you 
if you can't remember all of the jobs bills we've passed, there have 
been so many, but you can see them. It's on the Web, jobs.gop.gov. You 
can see it there, every single one, and you can see their status. Now, 
in fairness to the Senate, of the more than 30 bills we've passed, 
they've done a handful, and I mean literally a handful, but dozens more 
sit there waiting.
  I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if the pitch from my colleague 
that we are abdicating our responsibility to focus on jobs took any 
root with you at all, let me say emphatically: Not true, not true. Our 
focus has always been on jobs. Our focus will continue to be on jobs. 
Our focus has always been the economy. Our focus will continue to be 
the economy.

                              {time}  1320

  But there is a trust deficit in this town. Everyone hears it when 
they head home. Everybody hears it from their constituencies: I don't 
believe you when you say it out of Washington, D.C.
  I get it. I come up here. I read these budgets, Mr. Speaker. Some of 
them are hard to understand. We've got a whole team of staff here to 
help us sort through those numbers. I rely on that staff. I'll go and 
talk to them, and we'll go through it all line by line. It's hard to 
understand, and it doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to be D.C. 
doublespeak. It can be Georgia common sense that we bring to the 
budgeting process, and that is what the underlying resolution does 
today.
  In 2001, when President Bush took office, the CBO projected a surplus 
of $889 billion by 2011. That turned into a $1.3 trillion deficit under 
two Presidents--from $889 billion in surplus to $1.3 trillion in 
deficits. I'll tell you that every single spending bill that left this 
body over those years--and I was not in this body, serving, but I saw 
it day in and day out--was done with the very best of intentions. Yet 
where does that leave our children and our grandchildren? It leaves 
them $15 trillion in debt.
  You talk about being the wind at the backs of small businesses, Mr. 
Speaker. I tried to get my mind around what $15 trillion--on its way to 
$16 trillion--in debt means. Do you know, if you're a small business 
owner in America and if you'd started a business on the day that Jesus 
Christ was born and if you'd been so bad at it that you'd lost $1 
million a day, every day, 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day 
Jesus was born until today, you would have to continue to lose $1 
million a day every day, 7 days a week, for another 700 years to lose 
your first $1 trillion?
  As stewards of the American people's money, we've lost $15 trillion, 
much of that just in the last 4 years. Anything that we can do--no 
matter how big or small--that incorporates the American people into 
this budget discussion, that gives them the best information that they 
can have, that provides to us the best information that we can have and 
that does away with the funny math that has almost become a punch line 
across this country is a step in the right direction. There is a trust 
deficit in this country, and the underlying legislation today takes a 
very strong step towards correcting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say again how much I appreciate Chairman Paul 
Ryan and his work in leading the Budget Committee as well as how much I 
appreciate Chairman David Dreier and his work in leading the Rules 
Committee. These two gentlemen have been champions of honesty in the 
budget process. What we have today, both in the rule and in the 
underlying bill, is the realization of their tireless efforts.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' 
on this rule that allows every single idea to improve the underlying 
legislation, and that's germane, to come to this House floor, and then 
vote your consciences. Vote your consciences on those amendments, and 
vote your consciences on the underlying bill. I wager, if this body 
votes its conscience on this underlying bill, it's going to pass this 
body and head to the United States Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________