[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.
____________________