Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 55 (Friday, April 4, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 55 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2927-H2945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2013

general leave

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 1874.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 539 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1874.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1057

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1874) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide
for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, with Mr.
Collins of Georgia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the
first time.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Ryan of the
Budget Committee for his tireless work and activity, especially in the
area of budget process reform. He understands, as we all do, that the
budget process is broken, clearly by the results that we have had or
have not had here in Congress over the past number of years. I also
want to commend the Budget staff and my staff for the work that they
have done on bringing this bill forward and the work they have done on
the commonsense kinds of reforms that are necessary in the budget
process.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple and a commonsense piece of
legislation.

{time} 1100

What we do here has consequences. What we do in Congress has
consequences. Some of them are good; some of them are bad.

[[Page H2928]]

This amendment, when adopted, will allow us to have more information
upon which to make decisions here in Congress. This is especially
helpful in the area of economic activity. Economists from across the
political spectrum agree that legislation considered by Congress can
have significant effects on economic growth, what happens in the real
world.
Major legislation, such as the tax reform legislation that is being
discussed right now, is likely to have longer-term macroeconomic
effects that will increase growth and, as a result, produce increased
revenues, reduce spending, or some combination of the two. For example,
the Congressional Budget Office's, CBO's, prior macroeconomic work has
shown that deficit reduction has positive economic effects. I will
quote from one of their reports:

Over the medium term and long term, when economic output is
determined by the supply of labor and capital in the
productivity of those inputs, the reduction in Federal
borrowing that would result from smaller deficits would
induce greater national saving and investment and, thereby,
increase output and income.

In another report, Congressional Budget Office work concluded that:

Higher marginal tax rates tend to discourage some economic
activity.

Now, while the current law that we operate under requires that the
Congressional Budget Office provide Congress with information on the
fiscal impact--what something costs--of all legislation reported from a
committee, there is no systematic requirement for analysis of the
economic impact, the realistic effects in the real world out there in
the economy. This bill remedies that shortcoming.
This bill would require that the Congressional Budget Office provide
a macroeconomic impact analysis for legislation that the CBO--that the
Congressional Budget Office--estimates would have a budgetary impact of
more than .25 percent of the annual gross domestic product. That is
about $43 billion. In addition, the bill would require that the
Congressional Budget Office provide a statement of the critical
assumptions and sources of data underlying their estimate.
This new macroeconomic impact analysis would not, Mr. Chairman--would
not--replace the current work that CBO does, but it would provide more
important information. I can't imagine anybody in this House who
desires us not to have more information on the pieces of legislation
that we are dealing with.
So, again, this is a simple, commonsense, and, I hope, bipartisan
bill that we will be talking about and voting on today. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
I was interested to hear my colleague from Georgia end his comments
by saying we should have more information rather than less. As I look
at this legislation, on page 3, they say they want more information on
the dynamic effects of different policies but specifically exclude, for
example, the Committee on Appropriations; investments that we might
make in our kids' education; or investments that we might make in other
areas to power our economy--research and development, for example.
It is particularly interesting because the Republican budget that was
just released and voted on the other night in the Budget Committee,
according to CBO, in the next couple of years will create a drag on the
economy, will actually hurt jobs in the next couple of years. Why is
that? That is, in part, due to the fact that they make deep cuts in
parts of the budget for investment in research and development and
other areas that help power our economy. So it is kind of interesting,
Mr. Chairman, that they specifically excluded the CBO from doing an
analysis on that.
Now, a couple of my colleagues will have amendments to the bill, and
if our Republican colleagues don't somehow mean to ignore those
important investments, hopefully they will join us in supporting those
amendments.
If you were the CEO of a company and you were projecting your growth
and you were projecting your income, you would want to look at how much
you are going to make from certain investments you make in your
workforce and those kinds of investments. According to this bill, you
don't want that. What this bill is after is simply to do an analysis
primarily on a tax policy. It is motivated primarily by this idea that,
if you provide big tax breaks to people at the very high end of the
income ladder, it will trickle down and lift up all the boats,
everybody else, trickle-down theory.
We saw how well that worked in the 2000s. We had big tax cuts in 2001
and 2003. A few years later, for a variety of reasons, the economy
tanked. You heard the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve who
predicted that those tax cuts would generate growth come back and say,
you know, he was wrong.
So, I am all for additional information. On that point, I want to say
to my colleagues that, on the most recent tax reform proposal that came
out of the Ways and Means Committee, you actually do have a number of
scores from the Joint Tax Committee, from our nonpartisan scores.
They have eight. They have eight scenarios. One projects .1 percent
growth; one projects 1.6 percent growth. That is, of course, the one
that Chairman Camp ran with in all the information he put out. But what
he failed to mention is they came up with eight scenarios. The reason
they came up with eight scenarios is because they couldn't boil it down
to say this will be the dynamic impact of that particular legislation
because there are too many unknown variables. That is why they had
eight.
Now you want them to somehow come up with one when they have
repeatedly informed this Congress that it depends so much on the
different assumptions that you make, that you can't make one prediction
on that kind of legislation.
I have trouble with this legislation for a variety of reasons; one
being, when it comes to tax policy, we have been informed by the
experts that it is hard to pinpoint one number and boil it down to a
growth figure. Then, as I mentioned, my colleagues have left out the
benefits of investing in things like infrastructure, things like our
kids' education, things like scientific research, so they are certainly
not asking for more information when it comes to those important
investments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friend from Maryland to
read the bill. Read the bill. This isn't about tax increases or tax
decreases specifically.
Page 4, the macroeconomic impact analysis. An estimate of the changes
of economic output: employment, interest rates, capital stock, tax
revenues, all. In fact, the kinds of things that the gentleman points
to in infrastructure or education, if they have an economic impact of
greater than .25 percent of the gross domestic product, they would be
evaluated and we would get a report from CBO on that.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Chris
Stewart.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Price, who is one of the
really bright lights here in Congress, for his leadership on this.
Imagine the CEO of a business telling the board of directors that he
would like to buy a new piece of equipment. Unfortunately, this piece
of equipment is fairly expensive. But there is good news, and that is,
by buying and making this investment, they are going to become more
profitable; they are going to improve their cash flow; they are going
to be able to hire more people and grow the business. That is a
beautiful thing.
But then imagine that the board of directors goes back to the CEO and
says, yes, you have to consider the cost of this equipment but you
cannot consider the benefits of buying this piece of equipment, so it
messes up entirely his profit projections. They are not able to
consider the higher revenue and the growth that this company would
undertake. That would be absurd and, of course, that wouldn't be a
sound business decision. But that is exactly the situation that we find
ourselves in right now.
The Congressional Budget Office does not have the ability to account
for economic growth, specifically, the impact on GDP when it comes from
tax cuts. CBO is, unfortunately, in the role of the board of directors
telling the businessowner--or the business CEO, in

[[Page H2929]]

my example--that it can't use the full toolkit of economic modeling in
making projections upon which to make these critical decisions.
I have a degree in economics. I was a small business owner. I
understand this isn't rocket science. The modeling of this is
relatively simple. It is certainly something that we could do, and we
hurt ourselves when we don't allow us to take advantage of this
modeling.
There is something that Members from both sides of the aisle can
agree upon, and it is that many times the numbers provided by CBO are
simply not accurate. This is a way that will fix that. Part of the
reason they object, frankly, is that it underestimates the impact of
tax cuts.
Mr. Chairman, this is something that could help us make better
decisions. I implore Members to support it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, look, the gentleman who just spoke
mentioned some important examples. If you are a CEO, you want to know
when you buy a piece of equipment or capital what the economic dividend
is going to be on that. But I go back to the fact, on page 3, our
Republican colleagues are asking for information on economic growth
impacts of all sorts of things, but they specifically exclude anything
that comes out of the Appropriations Committee.
It is not a surprise, because the Congressional Budget Office, in its
analysis of the Republican budget, says that during the next couple of
years it will actually slow down economic growth. In fact, if you look
at their proposal, it calls for deep cuts in important investments. CBO
says that will have a negative economic impact over the next couple of
years. So it is not surprising that they don't want that information
provided as part of this analysis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1874 and
to explain to my Republican colleagues why their tax policies have not
worked and will not work to produce economic growth and jobs.
I am a scientist who has spent over 20 years at Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory conducting research and a successful businessman
before that, and a scientist proceeds on the basis of facts. The
historical facts on Republican tax policies are clear.
Tax policies during the Clinton years, predicted by the Republicans
to restrict economic growth, in fact generated the strongest
uninterrupted period of job growth in our lifetimes--over 22 million
new American jobs in 8 years.
Then the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 reversed those policies, and
in the following 8 years, the net number of new jobs was essentially
zero--actually, slightly negative. Twenty million Americans entered the
workforce during the Bush years, and the Republican policies produced
zero net jobs for them, opening up a jobs gap of over 20 million jobs,
a jobs gap that we are still closing today.
So to the extent that there is a causal link between tax policies and
job creation, the data is clear: Republican policies have destroyed
jobs and Democratic policies have created them.
I will now attempt to explain why this is and why the simplified
macroeconomic modeling promoted by this legislation will fail to match
the real world.
Generally speaking, Democratic tax breaks deliver benefits to the
middle class while Republican tax breaks deliver benefits to the very
wealthy, and, as it turns out, the very wealthy spend and invest their
money very differently than the middle class.
Mr. Chairman, the macroeconomic models promoted in this legislation
typically model our economy with a single aggregated consumer. Like the
Republicans, they pretend that giving an extra dollar to a billionaire
is no different than giving an extra dollar to a working class family.
However, if you give an extra dollar to a middle class family, they
will spend it in the local economy, increasing local economic growth,
or they will invest it in some of the highest return investments
available to anyone, investing in their children's college education
or, perhaps, buying a second car so that their spouse can get a job.
Now, if you give that same dollar to a very wealthy individual, they
will not change their spending habits because they are already spending
as much as they feel like spending and this will not change, so there
will be no local economic growth.
The investments of the very wealthy are also very different since
they no longer have available to themselves the high-return investments
available to the middle class. The very wealthy have already spent
everything they can to send their children to the finest schools. They
already have seven Cadillacs in their garages. So the marginal
investments of the wealthy are intrinsically less productive due to the
basic principle of economics known as the ``law of diminishing
returns.''
Since economic growth is equal to investments times return on
investment--sorry about the equation--the economic growth from
channeling money to the wealthy is far less than the same relief being
given to the middle class.

{time} 1115

Democratic middle class policies are pro-growth policies, and
Republican policies are not.
Mr. Chairman, there is also another important effect not captured by
the single-consumer macroeconomic models in this legislation, which is
the increasing propensity for wealthy people to move their money
offshore.
If you give an extra dollar to wealthy people, they will turn it over
to their money managers, who look around for high yields and who will
increasingly invest those dollars overseas, perhaps increasing the net
worth of the wealthy investors but competing with and destroying
American jobs. Had that same dollar been given in tax relief to middle
class families, it would have been much more likely to stay in America.
So, in the real world, Republican policies trickle down, but they
trickle down to jobs in China, and that is why the Bush tax cuts have
generated zero jobs in the 8 years after having been enacted.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they
are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval
or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the
House.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the
Budget Committee and an individual who knows well the imperative of
reforming the budget process.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to
thank the vice chair of the Budget Committee for bringing this bill
forward and for his hard work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is really pretty simple. It will help Members
understand how legislation affects the economy. Under current law, the
CBO doesn't have to provide that kind of big picture analysis. It
usually assumes the economy will stay the same no matter how much in
government taxes is spent. Think about that. We all know that that is
not true. People respond to incentives. Federal policy changes the
economy, and under this administration, the economy has consistently
failed to meet expectations.
This is the chart that the CBO has shown over the years where they
have consistently lowered their economic outlook. This has had a huge
effect on our budget, and it has made balancing the budget that much
harder. Traditionally, our economy has grown at about 3 percent a year,
but over the past 4 years, it has grown only by 2 percent a year. It
has grown less than half the average rate of other recoveries since
World War II. The labor force participation rate has fallen to 63
percent. That is close to the lowest level in over 35 years. There are
10.5 million Americans who are now unemployed, and 7.2 million
Americans are working part time for economic reasons. Those who are
working have seen meager growth in their wages. The typical household
income for families has actually declined. In fact, it is at the lowest
level since 1995.
This weak recovery isn't something that just happened to us. It is
not just by accident. It is clear that now that we are 5 years into
this that the President's policies are weighing down the

[[Page H2930]]

economy and are hurting the budget outlook.
The Congressional Budget Office now expects us to take in much less
revenue, and that makes it much harder to balance the budget because of
this poor economy. Since just last year, the baseline deficit has grown
by $1.2 trillion. The top line shows you last year's estimate, and the
bottom red line shows you this year's estimate. Just from last year's
estimate of where the economy was heading to this year's estimate of
where the economy is heading by the Congressional Budget Office, it
tells us there will be $1.2 trillion in more deficits because of these
failed economic policies.
We want to stop the failure. We want to get this economy growing. The
CBO knows that if you actually have a better policy that actually grows
the economy, you will help the budget outlook, and you will help get
people back to work. You will help increase take-home pay. Just as a
weak economy can drag us into the red, a good budget can push the
economy forward. That is why Members need to know this before they vote
on legislation. They need to know what the world might look like under
a new law. It is common sense to ask how legislation will affect the
economy.
This bill requires the CBO to give Members just that estimate. We are
asking the CBO to give the same kind of analysis that we use in our own
budget. In an analysis provided by the CBO, they find the deficit
reduction like we are proposing will help the economy grow. In 2024,
economic output will be 1.8 percent higher per person than it otherwise
would be. That is about $1,100 per person. That is a pretty crucial
piece of information. So we are adding to the toolkit. We are not
taking anything away.
To the criticism I am hearing from others that, gosh, you are not
doing this on every piece of legislation, you need to do this for the
appropriations process, do you have any idea how many thousands of
estimates come from the Appropriations Committee? If you actually
gummed up the works like that, you would bring this place and the
estimating agencies to a screeching halt. That is why there is an
important threshold that is for significant pieces of legislation,
legislation that is a quarter a point of the economy or higher, so that
we can be well informed on big pieces of fiscal policy and so that we
don't gum up the works and bring this agency and this institution to a
screeching halt.
We think this hits the fine balance between the two. We think it is
important that Members of Congress have a sense of how their votes will
be affecting the economy. That is only common sense, and I urge the
adoption of this bill.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for actually bringing this to our
attention.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to respond to the last point of the chairman of the Budget
Committee with respect to the appropriations process, as I indicated
earlier, this bill specifically exempts those pieces of legislation
even if they meet the threshold with respect to the other legislation
in here.
Again, it is, perhaps, not surprising. I think the American public
knows that we have a short-term budget agreement, the Murray-Ryan
agreement, but if you look at the budget that Republicans in Congress
are proposing, it calls for a 24 percent cut to the current services in
the recent bipartisan legislation over a 10-year period.
Let's just take one category of investments--in our kids. That means
about an $18 billion cut in early education. It means about an $80
billion cut in K-12 education. It means about a $205 billion cut in
current policy higher education. It calls for charging college students
higher interest rates for the period of time when they are in college.
That raises about $40 billion at a time when that same budget doesn't
ask for anything from the highest-income individuals and doesn't raise
one penny to reduce the deficit from closing special interest tax
breaks.
So it is no surprise to me that they would want to exclude the
economic impacts of those investments that they are dramatically
cutting. As I said earlier, the CBO, in its most recent analysis of the
House Republican budget, says it will slow down economic growth in the
next couple of years. It is very interesting that they don't want that
quantified with respect to the appropriations bills. At the same time
our Republican colleagues are saying they want more information, they
specifically limit the information to certain areas.

The other thing I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, is immigration
reform. We want the CBO to give us an analysis, when they have a
specific bill, so they can determine the economic benefit and the
impact of it. That is a good thing, and the CBO has done that for
immigration reform. In fact, of all of the pieces of legislation that
are before this House right now, one of the things that could have the
most immediate economic growth benefit is the bipartisan immigration
bill before this House.
The Congressional Budget Office has looked at that. They say that
will generate a lot more economic activity. In fact, they say, over
year 10, it will actually boost economic growth by 5 percent compared
to what it would otherwise be. They say it will reduce the deficit in
this 10-year window by almost $200 billion and, in the 20-year window,
by almost $1 trillion. That is an analysis that we all should benefit
from.
Interestingly, while that would provide great economic growth, based
on CBO reports, and when Democrats the other night proposed an
amendment in the House Budget Committee to adopt that bipartisan
immigration reform bill which would generate economic growth, all of
our Republican colleagues voted ``no.'' We want more information--the
more the better--but it needs to be information that the economists say
they can usefully provide us.
I get back to the fact that, when it comes to the tax reform
proposal, for example, that Chairman Camp put in, they said that they
couldn't narrow it down to one answer. They gave eight different models
based on different assumptions. Our Republican colleagues are trying to
say to professional economists, We really don't care what you say; you
come up with a particular answer. Whereas, we think we should be asking
for information in every case where it can be plausibly provided.
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues don't want it everywhere it
can be plausibly provided because they specifically exclude the
economic benefit of important investments in our economy and jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a very
productive member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind
words.
Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is whether we are going
to continue to ignore the economic consequences of the major actions
that we take or whether we are going to start recognizing that
incentives matter and that the legislation we pass has profound
economic consequences that must be taken into account.
Why does Amsterdam have the narrowest houses on Earth? It is because
they tax by street frontage.
Incentives matter.
What happens to our revenues if we tax all of a person's $100,000
income? The static scoring on which we now exclusively depend says that
that would raise us $100,000, but we all know the correct answer is
that we would raise zero dollars because that person now has no
incentive to work.
Macroeconomics gives us tools to anticipate the real-world effect of
major policy changes, and we ought not to be blind to them. It is not
perfect, but it comes far closer to the mark than does a static model
that assumes that people are mindless automatons whose behavior never
varies despite major changes in the economic environment that our laws
create.
This measure doesn't presume to tell the CBO how to do its job or
what formula to use in its analysis. We will still get all of the
static scoring the same as before, but on major legislation that
greatly impacts the overall economy, this bill says: give us the
complete picture. If a proposal is going to affect the economy by more
than a quarter percent for good or ill, then

[[Page H2931]]

tell us. Tell us what you think, and show us why you think so.
For too long, Congress has blundered from one economic policy to
another with its eyes wide shut, and it is time we got the complete
picture and took into account the real-world consequences of our
actions.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on both sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 16 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Georgia has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of
the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really want to
thank the vice chairman of our Budget Committee for his leadership in
trying to continually protect the working family budget from the
onslaught of the Federal budget.
I am a little bit in disbelief, Mr. Chairman, from what I hear on the
floor. Rarely has there been a more commonsense bill that has come to
this floor. It simply says two things. As we make important legislative
decisions in this body, we should have more information instead of
less, and we should think longer term as opposed to shorter term. Yet
it is opposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
I am somewhat incredulous. I would say, if my Democratic colleagues
don't want the information, maybe they don't have to pay attention to
the information. I have heard, Well, not all of the information I want
is going to come from this particular piece of legislation. I would
encourage the distinguished gentleman from Maryland to encourage his
staff to provide him then with the information that he wants.
What is really important here, Mr. Chairman, is that we understand in
an economy in which millions of our fellow countrymen are unemployed or
are underemployed how major pieces of legislation will impact the
economy and their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations as they lay
awake at night, wondering how they are going to make ends meet. I just
wonder if one of the reasons that our Democratic colleagues are
opposing this bill is that they know the Congressional Budget Office
has now told us that ObamaCare is going to cost this economy 2.5
million jobs that otherwise we would have had.

{time} 1130

What if we had that information before the bill instead of after the
bill? Maybe the crown jewel would not have appeared.
So maybe they don't want the American people or Members of Congress
to have that information, but the American people deserve this
information, and we demand it on their behalf.
We need to support this commonsense bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing our Republican colleagues say they want
the ``complete picture'' and ``more information is better than less.''
We agree. This is why it is so interesting, that they specifically
exclude information based on bills that come out of the Appropriations
Committee that call for investments in our economy and in areas that
can help promote job growth.
They say they want more information, but their bill says they want it
only in one area and not in another.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess I am not surprised, given the fact that
the budget that the Republicans just voted out of the Budget Committee
and expect to be on the floor next week makes dramatic, historic cuts
to important investments that this country has made in the past. In
fact, it is 40 percent below the lowest investments as a share of the
economy we have made since the 1950s.
This country has been able to compete and has been an economic
powerhouse, in part, because of the great investments we have made as a
Nation in important areas like science, research, infrastructure, and
education; and yet Republicans want to exclude that in this bill.
Again, it is not surprising because the Congressional Budget Office,
the very entity that they say they want to provide us this analysis,
has said, over the next couple of years, their budget is going to slow
down the economy and economic growth, in part, because of the deep cuts
they make in this one area of budget that they don't want this
information about. Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from
the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the distinguished ranking member and
the manager of this bill.
I want to associate myself with Mr. Van Hollen's analysis and add
some other thoughts.
We are on the floor today, April 4, and might I make mention of two
points that are not particularly related, but I do want to, again,
acknowledge the men and women at Fort Hood, Texas.
I was there in 2009 to mourn with those families. Today, I mourn as
well with those families whose loved ones have lost their lives and
those who suffer. It is important for us as a Nation to be responsive
to their needs. I know that we will do so in a bipartisan manner.
I also want to make mention that today is the date of the
assassination of one of the greatest peacemakers in the world, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Besides his concern for those who did not have
equal rights, he was also an economist, to the extent that his advocacy
was to extinguish poverty.
The last days of his life were spent planning the Poor People's March
in 1968 to raise incomes and the quality of life of men and women
across America.
So I raise the question of where we are in 2014. This is not a
conversation that we easily engage with our friends on the other side
of the aisle.
As you are passing the budget resolution, the process that you are
in, to my knowledge, there was no effort to include an increase to the
minimum wage.
There was no effort to ensure that 164,000 persons in the State of
Texas would get an unemployment insurance extension, thereby ceasing
them from losing their homes or being evicted from their rental
properties or literally not being able to support their families.
Now, we have on the floor of the House legislation that simply
exacerbates the circumstance of those who are aspiring to be in the
middle class. It is a push toward dynamic scoring.
Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the microeconomic effects of
policy changes before they happen and continue to pop up everywhere. In
fact, it was even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction, also known as the supercommittee, which, by the way,
with no condemnation, did not work. It could not get a common ground.
You would wonder why Republicans are pushing this dynamic scoring
bill. It is because they claim the traditional cost estimates prepared
by the CBO are not enough, when we have used the Congressional Budget
Office for decades, and it has been an effective tool to balance
between revenue and tax.
So you wonder why the dynamic scoring comes in because it breaks the
backs of poor people and the middle class.
We believe that it is simply an attempt to force Congress and the CBO
to accept this concept of dynamic scoring and promote the efforts of
the Republicans to, again, give more tax cuts.
We know that tax cuts did not work. In the good intentions of the
Bush administration, those tax cuts put us in the predicament we are
in, after leaving the Clinton administration with a billion-dollar
surplus and the ability to invest in infrastructure.
I remember the smiles on those citizens during that timeframe that
the economy was turning.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. In the context of this particular legislation, a
budget bill led by Mr. Ryan has now given a $200,000 tax cut already to
those who hold most of the wealth, but yet cutting Medicaid and cutting
food stamps to give an opportunity for soldiers' families to be able to
eat.
I am against this bill because I think CBO has an effective structure
to give

[[Page H2932]]

us the information we need, and cutting taxes is not going to move
America forward to be the greatest Nation in the world with research,
with infrastructure rebuild, education, and good health care.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to
H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.
My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as
part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential
impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.
My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure
pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.
In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could very well be entitled
the Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in essence
what's going on here.
Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of
policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere;
in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.
Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic
scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the
cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.
It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed
to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.
The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the
economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that
involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.
None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim
Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally
have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has
been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic
scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate
than the current way.''
Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves,
generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that
revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better, Mr.
Chairman, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down
economics.
Mr. Chairman, where have we heard that before?
I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of
dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that
tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a
trickle-down form of budgeting.
Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but
instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to
look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined
in the Small Business Act.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs
to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized
Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone
program.
The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting
assistance program ``whose primary objective is job creation and
increasing capital investment in distressed communities.''
It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low
income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting
opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and
price-evaluation preferences.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the
federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone
certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded
through the HUBZone program.
Mr. Chairman, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because
that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.
The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget
process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former
Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified
that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be,
in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the
tools are not even being used.''
Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message
is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems
faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to
deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important
thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''
Mr. Chairman, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time--
though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in
distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to
support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about
dynamic scoring.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for this commonsense
piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, to hear the debate on the floor this morning about Mr.
Ryan's budget, you would think that we are arguing about increases or
decreases in taxes, but indeed, we are debating more information to
make informed decisions, Mr. Chairman. It has nothing to do with those.
There will be a time to debate the new budget, but this is about job
creation, Mr. Chairman. This is about the CBO and the flawed method--
many times--that they use in preparing documents for us to make
informed decisions.
I will give you a prime example. We had CBO come in and talk to us
about energy policy. I said: Well, if we start to tax some of our
natural resources so that we can lower gas prices for those people that
are having to fill their tanks and having to make decisions between
food on the table and gas in their tank, if we tap that, what would be
the impact?
They say: Oh, well, you would get a negative CBO score. I said: Well,
how could that be? Because, if we had revenues from that, it would
create $1.7 trillion over 10 years; and yet what we have somehow is a
justification. He says: Well, we are making the assumption that you
have already tapped that.
As a business guy, when you have that kind of logic, you can't make
correct decisions.
This is about job growth, Mr. Chairman. We lost 400 jobs in the last
48 hours in my district. That is 400 families that are going to have to
start to worry about putting food on the table.
Mr. Chairman, we need to get behind this and have informed decisions
so that we can make good decisions on legislation going forward.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just ask one more time, if our Republican colleagues
want information to make informed decisions, why did they specifically
exclude one whole category of information based on legislation coming
out of the Appropriations Committee to make some important investments
that can help our economy grow? They say they want all this additional
information, but apparently, they didn't.
Again, I say it is not surprising because some of the changes that
the Republican budget makes in that area do, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, create a drag on the economy in the coming
few years.
So, again, you are going to have an amendment later on offered by Mr.
Connolly--and he will talk about that point--to find out if our
Republican colleagues really do want full information, but at least in
the current form of this bill, they don't.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank Congressman Price and the Budget Committee for
their hard work in trying to give Members of this body better
information.
Families and small businesses back home didn't need to read today's
jobs report to know that this isn't the strong recovery they deserve.
They know that, with Washington's $17 trillion of debt, it isn't hard
to see why our economy isn't creating enough jobs.
Hoosiers understand the problems, but they wonder if Washington even
cares.
Republicans owe taxpayers a clear plan to tackle the debt and
jumpstart the economy with private sector job growth. That is why my
colleagues and I are offering a commonsense reform to Washington's
broken budget process.
We have to force the Federal Government to take an honest look at how
its policies affect Americans struggling in this real economy. It is
not too late to save the American Dream from a future of debt and
decline, but we have to do that work now.

[[Page H2933]]

We owe taxpayers a clear vision for how we can force Washington to
stop spending money we don't have and make ends meet without raising
taxes. That starts with reforms like the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a senior member of
the House Republican Conference.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As an original cosponsor, I am very grateful to Congressman Dr. Tom
Price for his insight and leadership on this very important issue.
It is no secret that Washington's budget process is broken. The over
$17 trillion debt jeopardizes our national fiscal security and
threatens future opportunities for our children and grandchildren.
I appreciate House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's work to
produce a path forward that restores prosperity and makes substantial
reductions to our debt over the next 10 years.
For far too long, Congress has passed bills without a full
understanding of how policies will affect jobs and our economy. The
Congressional Budget Office, the body we as lawmakers depend upon to
provide fiscal and economic impacts of all legislation, has a bad track
record of providing accurate information due to a significant loophole.
House Republicans have made meaningful strides in restoring fiscal
accountability and responsibility back to Washington. We recognize, as
the Lexington County Chronicle promotes, it is the taxpayers' money,
not money the government allows citizens to hold temporarily.
Providing the CBO with the necessary toolkit to determine a bill's
potential fiscal impacts on every aspect of our economy is a step in
the right direction.
Take ObamaCare, for example. Seeing its failed implementation, which
has destroyed jobs, proves we must see how a law will impact American
job creators and the way families spend hard-earned paychecks.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation and give CBO the likely consequences that may occur.

{time} 1145

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The CBO provides lots of information right now. I hope all Members of
Congress will take advantage of the information they provide.
We have now heard, for the second time today, that the Affordable
Care Act has cost the economy jobs. Well, the CBO looked at that. They
studied it. They gave the Congress information just like our colleagues
are asking for. They didn't say that it had any negative job impact at
all right now. Now, they said, in the outyears, that now that people
are able to go into exchanges to afford health care, that people may
decide to not go to a job where the job had been the only way to get
taxpayer-benefited health care.
Under our current system, if you want a tax benefit for your health
care, if you want preferential tax treatment on your health care, where
do you go? You go to a job. That is where the tax benefit comes from.
As a result of the Affordable Care Act, people now can get a tax credit
and go into the exchange. So they can decide to launch a business from
their home and get health insurance without having been locked into
another job which had been the only place where they got tax-benefited
health care.
So I encourage my colleagues to read the CBO reports that have
already been issued on the Affordable Care Act. I also urge them to
read the CBO reports that have already been issued on the recovery bill
because the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that, as a result
of the recovery bill, the economy actually saved millions of jobs, that
that helped the economy from falling farther and farther.
Remember, when President Obama was sworn in, we were losing 800,000
jobs every month, and the recovery bill helped stop that free fall and
turned that around. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said,
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
So it is great our colleagues are asking the Congressional Budget
Office for more information, and we welcome that. It would be great if
they read the information the Congressional Budget Office has already
issued.
I just want to make one final point, Mr. Chairman. I have made it
before, but it is important because we keep saying we want more
information, more complete information, and if you read this
legislation, it says that. Then it says: except. We want information
except. We don't want any information on the job impact of those parts
of our budget that invest in jobs and our economy, like R&D at places
like NIH, National Institutes of Health, like our kids' education. We
want all the information, but don't tell us about the benefits of those
investments.
And I wonder why. It is because the Republican budget slashes our
investments in those areas. So don't tell us about the impact of that,
Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-
Growth Budgeting Act of 2013.
I thank Dr. Price for his leadership on this issue.
Now, this issue may strike many Americans as somewhat arcane, but it
has very important and real-world implications for our Nation's
economic growth, for job creation, and for wage levels.
Under current law, when legislation is introduced, our Budget Office
is prevented from taking into account how individual Americans will
actually respond to that legislative proposal; so our Budget Office has
to produce this artificial sort of analysis, failing to accurately
estimate the true costs or benefits of a given proposal. This obscures,
for policymakers, for members of the media, and for many rank-and-file
Americans, the true negative impact that tax hikes can have on our
Nation's economy, on the private sector, and so forth; and it fails to
recognize how tax cuts can actually stimulate the very work, savings,
and investment that lead to jobs, higher wages, and a secure
retirement.
So the Price bill takes an important first step to eliminating CBO's
unrealistic economic analysis by requiring CBO to apply real-world
analysis of the impact a proposal will have on our Nation's economy.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), who will be offering an amendment a little bit
later.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland.
Listening to the debate on the floor, one feels one is living out an
``Alice in Wonderland'' chapter. My friends on the other side of the
aisle continue to repeat their orthodoxy that slashing taxes and
slashing spending leads to prosperity. We went down that road in spades
under the previous President's administration, President Bush's, and it
led to the most ruinous economic performance since the Great
Depression.
Now they want to sell us a budget, once again, that slashes $5
trillion in this investment. This is actually disinvesting in America.
It is disinvesting in research and development. It is disinvesting in
human capital. It is disinvesting in education. It is disinvesting in
infrastructure.
We are handing over our future with this budget and this philosophy
to our world competitors, and somebody is going to have to stand on
this floor 20 years hence and explain to that generation how a great
Congress handed over the country's future to foreign competition.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank my friend from Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a commonsense budget
proposal, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2014.
This bill is genius. It is simple and it is darn important. It
requires the Congressional Budget Office to analyze the

[[Page H2934]]

macroeconomic impacts of major bills before they pass Congress. What a
concept. This tool will give Congress and the American people a real-
world picture of how the laws we pass impact our economy before we pass
them.
Current law requires CBO to provide Congress with information from
fantasyland on the fiscal impact of legislation. There is no
requirement to stay in our world and analyze the economic impact of
legislation, of jobs.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that such
scoring is impossible, yet they proudly tout that CBO used a
macroeconomic analysis in its report on the impact of the Senate's
immigration bill last year. They left fantasyland, joined our world.
Welcome.
The more information we have about the economic impacts of bills, the
better decisions we can make. Mr. Chairman, a simple but important
policy change like this will help get our economy back on track, create
jobs, protect hardworking Americans, and keep us in their world.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I was glad the last speaker mentioned the CBO report on immigration
reform. I just wish that, if they really wanted to have a pro-growth
policy, they would adopt the bipartisan immigration legislation that
the CBO wrote about, because what the CBO report said was that would be
a great boost to economic growth in our country. It would create more
jobs. It would create more economic activity. As I said, because it
would generate more economic activity and more pro-growth revenue, it
would actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $190
billion, and almost a trillion over 20. So, great.
I haven't really heard a response to this, Mr. Chairman, but we want
more information. CBO does reports all the time. But they have this big
except. We want more information, except we don't want information
about this part of our budget that deals with important investment in
our future.
As Mr. Connolly said, a lot of our economic competitors have been
copying successful models from the United States. For example, the
Chinese are trying to hire more scientists in the areas of biomedical
research, yet the Republican budget, if you apply it across the board,
cut 24 percent--cut--over the next 10 years from the amount for
research at NIH that was in the Ryan-Murray document. Again, not
surprising they don't want the Congressional Budget Office to look in
detail at that.
When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the budget that just
came out of the Budget Committee the other night, which will be on the
floor next week, they said, over the next couple of years, these fiscal
policies would reduce output and employment below the levels projected
in CBO's baseline--translation: it would reduce economic activity and
reduce job growth over the next couple of years.
So, again, not surprising that in the legislation before us, pro-
growth budgeting, our Republican colleagues don't want the CBO to tell
us about the pro-growth benefits of those important investments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
remaining on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Maryland has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for the Pro-Growth
Budgeting Act, and I thank Dr. Price for his leadership on this issue.
This simple legislation would require the Congressional Budget Office
to provide a full analysis of major legislation so that we know how
bills will impact our economy and our Nation's employment.
It appears today that Democrat opposition to this bill seems to
indicate their satisfaction with the anemic job growth, a historic $17
trillion debt and growing, no attempt to balance our budget, and
devastation of the middle class.
Before Congress even considers passing another legislative overhaul
like the Dodd-Frank or stimulus or the President's health care law,
let's understand exactly how these thousand-page bills will impact our
economy and potentially result in lost jobs and lost futures.
As we craft fiscal policy to get our economy back on track and
improve the livelihoods of our constituents, I would ask my colleagues:
Is it better for us to have more information or less? understanding or
ignorance? reality or spin?
Supporting the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act is a commonsense step that
will help us judge the long-term impact of legislation, and I would
urge my colleagues to join me in support.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
It is time to end the budget games in Washington, D.C., and this bill
is one way to bring more accountability and more honest budgeting to
Washington.
Four years ago, when the President's health care law was passed, it
included a number of budget gimmicks so that it appeared to be cheaper
than it really was. The gimmicks included collecting premiums for 10
years but only paying benefits for 5, delaying some provisions to the
year 11, 12, or 13.
We need commonsense budgeting, like the rest of America has to
budget. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act simply allows the Congressional
Budget Office to take a policy proposal and measure its impact on
future growth. And understand, that also means future generations. That
way we can tell if it is a good or a bad policy and make more informed
decisions. Some people really don't want to do that.
This bill is about doing what is right for the next generation. No
more passing the buck. Let's bring realistic budgeting and
accountability to Washington, D.C. Let's pass this bill today.

{time} 1200

The CHAIR. The Chair wishes to make a clarification on the time
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I sound like a broken record.
Our colleagues keep saying they want more information, but the bill
specifically excludes a major portion of information.
I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Jeffries), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. Dynamic scoring, as
contemplated in this legislation, is nothing more than a wolf in
sheep's clothing. It is a desperate attempt to revive a failed theory
of trickle-down economics that has been widely discredited by academics
but, more importantly, has been discredited in practice.
Let's just look at a side-by-side comparison: Eight years under Bill
Clinton, he raises the top tax rate to 39.6 percent, and 20.3 million
jobs were created. George Bush comes into office. He lowers the top tax
rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and what happens? Did the economy
grow? Did the rich invest more in the economy? Does the economy take
off? No. We lose 650,000 jobs. A side-by-side comparison.
Dynamic scoring is just designed to revive a theory that has hurt the
American people when put into practice by a Republican Congress and
George Bush.
We should be investing in job training, investing in education,
investing in transportation and infrastructure, investing in research
and development, and investing in technology and innovation. Instead of
trying to promote progress for the greatest number of Americans
possible, this budget, this bill, this Republican majority is simply
trying to protect prosperity for the few. And that is why we should
reject this bill.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.

[[Page H2935]]

I have to admit, I am puzzled. All this bill does is say that Members
of Congress ought to have more information about the decisions that we
are making here on behalf of the American people, not less. That is a
pretty simple concept in the real world. Only here in Washington do we
not want more information. I guess we want to stick our heads in the
sand.
The gentleman who just spoke said that this bill's purpose is to trot
out and continue to put in place a failed theory.
This bill doesn't do anything about the outcome of the results that
CBO would give us under this bill. We don't game the system at all.
What we do is want the Congressional Budget Office to give us more
information. If the gentleman is correct, then that is the information
that we will get. Why would he not want more information?
What else has been said here this morning, Mr. Chairman? We had a
scientist take the floor and say that he was against using more
information. A scientist.
As a physician, I can tell you that I never met an individual--any of
my medical colleagues--who didn't want all of the information that they
could get. In fact, that is what happens in the real world. In families
and in communities and in businesses, people want as much information
as they can so that they can make wise decisions. And that is what this
bill would do, give us more information so that hopefully, hopefully
Congress would be able to make more wise decisions.
I will tell you, I am puzzled by the gentleman from Maryland who
stands up over and over and talks about the benefits of dynamic scoring
on a particular piece of legislation that he supports. But then he
doesn't want dynamic scoring or a macroeconomic analysis of legislation
on anything else, just what he supports. You talk about being
duplicitous, Mr. Chairman. I am telling you.
The gentleman from Maryland keeps talking about slower growth in the
budget that we are going to be talking about next week, and he always
adds ``over the next few years'' because he doesn't want to talk about
the outyears, where the growth explodes, and we have that pro-growth
economy and getting people back to work and the jobs that are going to
be created.
So, Mr. Chairman, this really is pretty doggone simple. Either we
want more information or we don't. Republicans in this House at this
point want more information. In fact, in the Senate, a piece of
legislation that is similar to this--asking for macroeconomic analysis,
offered by Senator Portman--was voted on in a bipartisan way. The
Senate, in a bipartisan way, supported that amendment.
So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republicans
and Democrats, to stand up today and say to the American people, yes,
we want more information, so that, hopefully, we are able to make more
wise decisions. And I urge adoption of the underlying piece of
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, as chair of the Committee on Rules, I submit
my exchange of letters with the chair of the Committee on the Budget
regarding the provisions that warranted a referral of H.R. 1874 to the
Committee on Rules.

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 27, 2013.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ryan: On June 19, 2013, the Committee on the
Budget ordered reported H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting
Act of 2013. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted
an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant
to the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives over the rules of the House and
special orders of business.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 1874. In addition, the Committee
on Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 1874
or related legislation.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part the Congressional Record during consideration of the
legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
______

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, August 27, 2013.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sessions: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013, which the
Committee on the Budget ordered reported on June 19, 2013.
I acknowledge that certain provisions in this legislation
are in your Committee's jurisdiction. I appreciate your
decision to facilitate prompt consideration of the bill by
the full House. I understand that by foregoing a sequential
referral, the Committee on Rules is not waiving its
jurisdiction.
Per your request, I will include a copy of our exchange of
letters with respect to H.R. 1874 in the Congressional Record
during House consideration of this bill. We appreciate your
cooperation and look forward to working with you as this bill
moves through the Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryan,
Chairman.

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments recommended by the Committee on the Budget, printed in
the bill, and the amendment in part A of House Report 113-400, shall be
considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows.

H.R. 1874

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of
2014''.

SEC. 2. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES.

(a) In General.--Part A of title IV of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation

``Sec. 407. (a) Congressional Budget Office.--The
Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable,
prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any
committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate
(except the Committee on Appropriations of each House), as a
supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, a
macroeconomic impact analysis of the budgetary effects of
such bill or resolution for the ten fiscal-year period
beginning with the first fiscal year for which an estimate
was prepared under section 402 and each of the next three ten
fiscal-year periods. The Director shall submit to such
committee the macroeconomic impact analysis, together with
the basis for the analysis. As a supplement to estimates
prepared under section 402, all such information so submitted
shall be included in the report accompanying such bill or
resolution.
``(b) Economic Impact.--The analysis prepared under
subsection (a) shall describe the potential economic impact
of the applicable major bill or resolution on major economic
variables, including real gross domestic product, business
investment, the capital stock, employment, interest rates,
and labor supply. The analysis shall also describe the
potential fiscal effects of the bill or resolution, including
any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting
from changes in gross domestic product. To the extent
practicable, the analysis should use a variety of economic
models in order to reflect the full range of possible
economic outcomes resulting from the bill or resolution. The
analysis (or a technical appendix to the analysis) shall
specify the economic and econometric models used, sources of
data, relevant data transformations, and shall include such
explanation as is necessary to make the models comprehensible
to academic and public policy analysts.
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `macroeconomic impact analysis' means--
``(A) an estimate of the changes in economic output,
employment, interest rates, capital stock, and tax revenues
expected to result from enactment of the proposal;
``(B) an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result
from enactment of the proposal; and
``(C) a statement identifying the critical assumptions and
the source of data underlying that estimate;
``(2) the term `major bill or resolution' means any bill or
resolution if the gross budgetary effects of such bill or
resolution for any fiscal year in the period for which an
estimate is prepared under section 402 is estimated to be
greater than .25 percent of the current projected gross
domestic product of the United States for any such fiscal
year;
``(3) the term `budgetary effect', when applied to a major
bill or resolution, means the

[[Page H2936]]

changes in revenues, outlays, deficits, and debt resulting
from that measure; and
``(4) the term `revenue feedback' means changes in revenue
resulting from changes in economic growth as the result of
the enactment of any major bill or resolution.''.
``(d) Legislation With Revenue Provisions.--The
macroeconomic analysis described in subsection (c) shall rely
on macroeconomic analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on
Taxation for any provisions of such legislation that are
described in section 201(f). For legislation consisting
solely of provisions described in section 201(f), the
macroeconomic analysis described in subsection (c) shall be
prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 406 the following new item:
``Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation.''.

The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in part B of the report. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 113-400.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, lines 16 and 17, strike ``(except the Committee on
Appropriations of each House)''.
Page 3, line 18, before the comma, insert ``or as a
standalone analysis in the case of the Committee on
Appropriations of each House''.
Page 5, lines 13 through 15, strike ``.25 percent of the
current projected gross domestic product of the United States
for any such fiscal year;'' and insert ``$1,000,000,000 for
any such fiscal year;''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
You know, I listened to my friend from Georgia, and Lord Almighty, do
I agree with him. We should have all that information available to us
on dynamic scoring, including--and I assume the gentleman will support
my amendment--to correct what must have been a mistake in the
Republican majority's bill on page 3. Because knowing my friend's
commitment to full information available to the public and Members of
Congress, I can't imagine line 16 got it right. It must have been a
typo because it says here, yes, dynamic scoring by CBO, except--except
the Committee on Appropriations of each house.
Think about what that means, Mr. Chairman. Every single
appropriations bill, the entire funding of the Federal Government, is
exempted. I thought my friends wanted full disclosure. I thought they
wanted full information.
I heard my friend talk about the parallel with the medical
profession. No doctor wants to be deprived of key information when
making a key decision about a patient, a client. It could be life-and-
death. Well, it is no less than here in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that in response to my friend from Georgia,
I have a simple but important amendment to ensure that the broader
economic analysis required by the bill is applied equally to all
congressional actions. The bill, as currently drafted, as I said, it
exempts all appropriations bills.
Now, I know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle don't
want to acknowledge this, but funding basic research, making
transportation improvements, and purchasing ships for the Navy, to name
just a few examples in which we invest taxpayer money, have a
stimulative effect on the economy. For example, it is estimated that
28,000 construction jobs are created with every $1 billion we invest in
transportation infrastructure. In addition, the Federal Government
spent $13 billion over the past 25 years supporting the Human Genome
Project. That $13 billion Federal investment, it is estimated, had a
receipt to it of $780 billion, and counting.
We have arrived at the point, Mr. Chairman, sometimes in our debate
here on the floor, where we know the cost of everything but the value
of nothing. Investments have returns on them.
Whatever the cost of the Internet, which originally started out as
entirely a Federal investment, DARPANET, whatever that cost, it was
worth every penny because the return on it has been transformative
throughout the globe.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's decision to invest in infrastructure in the
interstate highway system, whatever it cost, is a gift that keeps on
giving. Its returns continue to this day, and it has helped America.
Let's not disinvest in America, and let's make sure we do have full
dynamic scoring for all appropriations bills in the spirit that my
friend from Georgia has laid down.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a senior member of
both the Appropriations and the Budget Committees.
Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If I did not know
my friend from Virginia as well as I do, I would have thought I had
detected a little sense of sarcasm in his remarks, but, frankly, I know
that is not the case. I know it is a sincere proposal.
I must say, though, as chairman of the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee of Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over the CBO, I
am pretty familiar with its operations, its resources, and its
capabilities, and the simple fact of the matter is that the amendment
would create an unsustainable amount of work for the CBO for no benefit
in new or additional information to the Congress of the United States.
By arbitrarily picking $1 billion as the threshold for the analysis,
this amendment would force CBO to conduct analyses on dozens of
additional bills.
CBO Director Elmendorf wrote to Chairman Ryan yesterday to explain
the limits of their capability and capacity. Let me quote from his
letter:

The CBO would not be able to perform the analyses
envisioned by that set of amendments: We do not have the
analytical capabilities or the level of staffing that would
be needed to undertake and complete the tasks that would be
assigned to us, nor would the usual timetable for considering
legislation allow the time that would be required to complete
such analyses, even if we did not face those analytical and
staffing constraints.

The time that it would take the CBO to produce these additional
estimates showing no discernible impact would delay Congress'
legislative work at both the committee level and on the floor. The
simple fact is, the amendment is unworkable and ill-conceived, and I
urge its rejection.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I have the utmost
respect--and he knows it--of my friend from Oklahoma. No sarcasm was
meant.
But he might forgive me for being shocked at a speech I took
certainly at face value about the need for full information and then a
carve-out explicitly in the law, the draft law, that exempts all
appropriations.
Now, if my friend feels that it is too much work for the CBO with
this threshold, then let's name a threshold. But his threshold in this
bill is zero. There will be no dynamic scoring by CBO on any
appropriations. I think that is not serving the American people well. I
don't think that is full disclosure. I don't think that is transparency
in government. I don't think that is good government. And I think that
suggests we have something to hide around here. And I am sure that is
not the message we intended to send.
That is the spirit of my amendment, full disclosure. And I am sorry
if this

[[Page H2937]]

means that CBO has to work harder, but we need full disclosure for our
citizenry. And that is what this amendment does.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Israel

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 113-400.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 4, line 9, strike ``, and labor supply'' and insert
``, labor supply, and State and local governments''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would
direct the CBO to analyze the impact of our major bills here in
Congress on some of the Nation's most critical institutions, our State
and local governments, and State and local taxpayers.
The State Budget Crisis Task Force is cochaired by former Lieutenant
Governor of the State of New York Richard Ravitch and the former
Federal Reserve Board Chair Paul Volcker. They spent a great deal of
time analyzing the impacts of what we do here on State and local
governments and taxpayers.
What did they find? They found that fiscal stress runs downhill, and
very often, local taxpayers are the recipient of that stress.
Everything we do here in Congress, Mr. Chairman, or everything that we
don't do has significant implications on broader levels of government
and local taxpayers.
But no mechanism exists at all to assess the fiscal impact of Federal
actions on those taxpayers. I am offering this amendment today because
if we are going to analyze how our fiscal actions affect the economy,
we need to make sure we are not just pushing off the hard decisions to
local taxpayers.
Let me give you an example. The Republican budget, offered by my good
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, cuts over $50 billion from road
repair and infrastructure investments.

{time} 1215

And so the implication of that budget is that the Federal Government
does less but local taxpayers have to pay the bill to fill in the
potholes. That is just fundamentally wrong. That is a wrong priority.
We have to stop staying in this position where we are cutting taxes and
spending here only to increase taxes and spending in our local
communities. We can't keep pushing off these costs and the accompanying
uncertainty surrounding this funding. That is why my amendment is so
important, Mr. Chairman. It would tell us if we are actually being
fiscally responsible at all levels, or are we simply moving costs from
one level of government to the other?
I hope my friends will support this amendment. We all represent not
just Federal taxpayers but local taxpayers, and we should protect the
interests of both.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this truly is a great idea. There
is no question that Congress ought to have more information about the
legislation that we are going to consider and how it affects State and
local governments. Far too often, we in Washington decide that we are
smarter than everyone else and choose to impose burdens on those
governments that are closer to the people.
Frankly, far too many of us here in Congress simply don't take the
principle of federalism seriously. In fact, this is such a great idea
that a Republican Congress passed it and a Democratic President signed
it into law in 1995. It is called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or,
more popularly, UMRA. This law requires CBO to analyze every piece of
legislation for the burdens that it imposes on State and local
governments.
Here is how CBO describes their work under the law:

In 1995, the UMRA was enacted to ensure that the Congress
receives information, during the legislative process, about
Federal mandates--requirements that would be imposed on
State, local, and tribal governments and on entities in the
private sector.

So, as with this amendment we are debating, the job is already done;
and, as with the next amendment, the job is already done. The issue is
already addressed. So I appreciate the gentleman's interest in the
issue, but there is simply no need for the amendment, and,
consequently, we will have to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, two responses to my friend from Georgia:
Number one, the law that he cites does not analyze the impact of
budget and tax decisions that we engage in here in Washington, D.C. So
the gentleman's response, with all due respect, in the world, is wrong.
Secondly, I do find it ironic that this entire debate has focused on
the critical need for more information. I have heard my friends talk
about the need for a complete picture; except when it comes to local
taxpayers, we don't want that information, we don't need to see that
picture, and we will continue to pass legislation and pass the bill to
those local taxpayers.
So, for all the high-minded speeches that we hear from my friends
about needing to protect the taxpayer, opposing this amendment
essentially says to the taxpayer you foot the bill for the decisions we
make here.
So we talk about cutting taxes and we put out our press releases and
we pat ourselves on the back for cutting Federal taxes and cutting
spending when what we are really doing is stabbing local taxpayers in
the back with those decisions.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 113-400.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 4, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Jobs Impact.--The analysis prepared under subsection
(a) shall also, using analytical principles and procedures
consistent with section 402, provide an estimate of the
number of jobs which would be created, sustained, or lost in
carrying out the applicable major bill or resolution in the
fiscal year in which it is to become effective and in each of
the 4 fiscal years following such fiscal year, together with
the basis for each such estimate, and to the extent
practicable, the analysis shall include regional and State-
level estimates of jobs that would be created, sustained, or
lost.
Page 4, line 21, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the most important issue confronting our
Nation today is the jobs crisis, something my constituents and I know
all too well as my home State of Rhode Island continues to be plagued
with the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, currently 9 percent.
While most Members would agree that the best way to address this jobs
crisis is to pass legislation that gets

[[Page H2938]]

our economy growing more quickly, we clearly have different ideas on
how best to achieve such growth. But we will have that important
conversation in great detail next week as the House is scheduled to
consider the Republican budget authored by Chairman Ryan and the
substantive alternatives on the floor.
Today, however, we have before the House a bill that modifies the
budget process. Specifically, this bill changes the rules that our
independent umpire, the Congressional Budget Office, uses to determine
the costs of implementing major pieces of legislation, defined as those
impacting gross domestic product by more than approximately $40
billion.
While your new rules would supplement--not replace--existing scoring
rules, let's be clear, the macroeconomic impact analysis, or dynamic
scoring process, that is called for under the bill is something my
colleagues and I on this side of the aisle view with great apprehension
and serious concern, as it relies upon much more uncertain and
subjective analytical principles, procedures, and assumptions than what
the Congressional Budget Office currently utilizes for scoring the
costs of legislation.
So while my colleagues across the aisle pursue what they believe is
an ideal set of scoring rules, I rise today with a proposal to give a
more targeted and specific picture of the impact pending legislation
will have on jobs in our communities.
The amendment I offer does not change your desired dynamic scoring
analysis; it merely requires production of a separate estimate, using
CBO's existing analytical principles and procedures, of the number of
jobs that will be created, sustained, or lost, including regional- and
State-level estimates when practicable, for the same proposals my
colleagues wish to score using their preferred set of rules.
Keep in mind, this is not a partisan proposal. This amendment is
derived from legislation, the Jobs Score Act, which I introduced along
with Senator Manchin, and has received balanced, bipartisan support in
both Chambers.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and help ensure that
Members of Congress are fully prepared to conduct their due diligence
and have the most complete understanding possible of how the major
bills considered in Congress impact jobs in our communities.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Rhode Island for
bringing the amendment. He and I were elected in the same class
together just 3 years ago, and I think we have been able to work
together to make a difference in the short time that we have been here.
I share his commitment to making sure that we have jobs estimates
coming out of legislation, which is why I am so proud that as drafted--
as drafted--this bill, introduced by my friend from Georgia, Dr. Price,
requires ``employment and labor supply analysis'' in subsection B.
Now, that is incredibly important, Mr. Chairman, because what we do
in Washington absolutely has consequences, and what those consequences
are is a fair subject of debate here in the Chamber. But today there is
no mechanism for determining, again, employment and labor supply
numbers on a dynamic basis over time recognizing what those actions
are.
Now, my concern about the amendment from my friend is that, rather
than scoring those jobs dynamically--again, understanding that for
every action there is a reaction--it scores in a static methodology
assuming that the government creates jobs, that there is anything at
all that the government does that actually creates a job.
Now, we can redistribute the wealth, but short of putting someone on
the Federal payroll, this amendment perpetuates the myth that the
government is in the job-creation business. The government is
absolutely in the job-destroying business, and we both work together on
that facet, and we can make some decisions that help the private sector
to succeed. It is those decisions, Mr. Chairman, that the bill, as
drafted, will make sure are measured, recorded, and reported here on
the House floor for the first time.
Again, I very much appreciate the intent of the gentleman to make
sure that this Congress is focused like a laser on job creation, but
scoring it as if the government is creating jobs instead of recognizing
it is only our actions that the private sector is being impacted on
that creates those jobs, I believe, would take what is a very good
underlying bill and move it in the wrong direction.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Well, I thank my colleague for his kind words, but I
think he is actually missing the point.
The dynamic scoring, in fact, does allow you to assess the employment
impact, and, obviously, we think it does that through a tainted lens
because such analysis will be subjective and uncertain, and we have
made the arguments about dynamic scoring. But it doesn't impact that at
all. That remains in the bill.
This simply adds a provision that would require an analysis be done
under the traditional methods that the CBO uses. It will ensure that
CBO conducts the same kind of analysis of jobs impact when using the
static method currently used by CBO. And we can and should do both.
The fact of the matter is this is an opportunity to be sure that we
have as much information as possible about the impact of actions that
we take on job creation, on the ability to sustain or cost jobs. In
fact, providing this amendment will only ensure that that analysis
happens in both places.
You have recognized in the underlying bill that jobs impact matters--
we agree--but let's not limit that information. Let's be sure there is
a jobs impact both in the static analysis that is done by CBO as well
as in your new provision for dynamic scoring. Let's have an assessment
in both of those side by side. It will provide a full picture of the
potential range of likely employment effects in our communities. We
certainly have a responsibility to understand that and to deal with as
much information as we can about the impact on jobs.
There is no more urgent issue, and we have heard lots of
conversations this morning about how important it is that we have good
data, good information. This simply supplements that. Let's make sure
that jobs analysis happens in both places at the CBO.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 113-400.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 4, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Reporting on Accuracy of Macroeconomic Impact
Analyses.--Upon completion of the fifth fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of any major bill or joint
resolution for which the Congressional Budget Office prepared
an analysis under subsection (a), the Congressional Budget
Office shall report on the accuracy of the original
macroeconomic impact analysis of such enacted bill or joint
resolution and submit these reports to the Committees on the
Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Page 4, line 21, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward
but one that I think is important to consider. Simply put, my

[[Page H2939]]

amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to review and report
on the accuracy of dynamic scoring estimates 5 fiscal years after any
dynamically scored bill is enacted.
Under H.R. 1874, very few pieces of legislation are likely to meet
the threshold for requiring this type of macroeconomic analysis.
However, as we have heard during this debate, the use of these
estimates is controversial. There is a body of opinion that says that
this type of scoring is legitimate, and there is a body of opinion that
asserts that this type of scoring undermines the budget process and
produces highly uncertain projections. My amendment would provide a way
to follow up on estimates performed under H.R. 1874 and help shed light
on whether those estimates, in fact, offered accurate data.
I will confess that I, for one, remain skeptical of dynamic scoring;
but if we proceed in this vein and enact dynamic scoring, I think
having the accountability put in place by having the CBO come back to
Congress with information on whether the actual economic impact of
certain legislation turns out to be, in fact, accurate would be very
helpful in helping us assess whether or not this particular form of
scoring is, in fact, legitimate and fact-based.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, although I don't oppose the
amendment, I ask unanimous consent that I may claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the
Budget Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the vice chairman for his time.
Looking at the amendment, it makes sense. It looks like the right
thing to do. I think it is important that we always reassess these
models to make sure that we are getting it right. People call this
dynamic scoring. I like to call it reality-based scoring, and we always
want to have a better measurement of reality. So I think the
gentleman's amendment makes sense, and we would accept it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the majority for accepting
the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time, as well.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1230

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 113-400.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 5, after line 23, insert the following:
``(d) HUBZone.--The Director shall include in any
macroeconomic impact analysis submitted pursuant to this
section the impact, if any, of the applicable major bill or
resolution on any historically underutilized business zone,
as that term is defined in section 3(p)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(1)).''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the spirit of cooperation
and recognition that there are definitive distinctions and differences
of opinion on the underlying legislation. I am trying to make this bill
better.
My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as
part of their macroeconomic analysis, if this bill passes, estimates of
the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small
Business Act. My amendment only seeks to look at the effects, should
this measure pass, on HUBZones as defined in the Small Business Act.
In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could be entitled the
``Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Act.'' If that is the essence of the bill,
we need to find the impact of it.
Dynamic scoring is an attempt measure that macroeconomic effects of
policy changes before they happen. We want to know in the defined areas
that deal with underserved areas all around America, in everyone's
State, whether or not there is an impact on these important areas.
I believe that dynamic scoring has an impact on the outreach and the
funding that we have to support the concept of a HUBZone, and
therefore, my amendment is clear in its effort to make sure that those
particular areas are in fact impacted.
The Small Business Administration administers several programs that
support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized
Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone.
I recall that the Bush administration tried to use dynamic scoring to
estimate the cost their tax cuts--asserting that tax cuts would
increase revenue in sort of a trickle-down budgeting, but the question
is, these smaller businesses that are attempting to thrive and impacted
by Small Business Administration programs, how would this type of
structure impact them.
The HUBZone program is a small business Federal contracting
assistance program whose primary objective is job creation and
increasing capital investment in distressed communities.
That is an important responsibility, and it is an important goal for
this Nation because we know that small businesses can help generate any
number of jobs; and the assistance, I know, personally, to small
business has been effective and productive.
With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to
H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.
My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as
part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential
impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.
My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure
pass, on HUB Zones, as defined in the Small Business Act.
In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled
the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in
essence what's going on here.
Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of
policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere;
in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.
Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic
scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the
cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.
It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed
to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.
The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the
economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that
involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.
None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim
Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally
have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping.
That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called
dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more
accurate than the current way.''
Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves,
generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that
revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair,
I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.
Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before?
I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of
dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that
tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a
trickle-down form of budgeting.
Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but
instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to
look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined
in the Small Business Act.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs
to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized
Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone
program.
The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting
assistance program

[[Page H2940]]

``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital
investment in distressed communities.''
It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low
income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting
opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and
price-evaluation preferences.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the
Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone
certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded
through the HUBZone program.
Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because
that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.
The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget
process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former
Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified
that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be,
in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the
tools are not even being used.''
Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that, ``My main
message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget
problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal
is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most
important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more
tools.''
Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time--
though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in
distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to
support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about
dynamic scoring.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady
for offering this amendment and for recognizing the value and
importance of economic analysis for legislating here in Congress.
Too often, we hear from the other side of the aisle these taunts
about magic asterisks and phony numbers, but your amendment rightly
recognizes that legislation can make a difference on the economy.
However, what we can't accept about the amendment is the idea that
CBO should try to estimate its effects on only small sections of the
country rather than the Nation as a whole.
Instead of dictating every detail of the macroeconomic analysis for
CBO, we think that we need to give them the flexibility to adapt their
analysis to the specifics of particular legislation. This amendment
would unnecessarily limit that flexibility, so we urge its defeat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen), the ranking member of the full Budget Committee and thank
him again for his leadership.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Ms. Jackson Lee.
We have heard from our colleagues all morning that they want more
information, a more complete picture of the impact of legislation on
our economy.
Well, the legislation before us, as we have pointed out repeatedly
today, exempts the part of the budget that deals with investments in
discretionary spending. From the start, it does that.
Then they said no to amendments on the impact on jobs. They have said
no to getting more information on the impact on State and local
governments and local taxpayers, and now, they are saying no to getting
more information on vital portions of our economy.
This doesn't say the CBO can't look at other things. It just says
that it is important that they look at this part of the economy. There
are HUBZones in every part of the country, and they are an important
part of our strategy that a lot of us are working towards to try to
make sure that everyone in this country has an opportunity to move
forward and succeed.
So it is discouraging to hear our colleagues reject a request for
more information on jobs, local taxpayers, and now in this particular
area.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his astute comments and
build on the comments made by the ranking member.
Let me put into the record that the Congressional Research Service,
in FY2010, the Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7
billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of
that amount awarded through the HUBZone program. That is an investment
in small business. That is the creation of jobs.
Mr. Chairman, the gist of my amendment is jobs and what will be the
impact of this type of budget structuring on the HUBZones. Why wouldn't
we want that information?
Let me quote former Budget chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness
who testified:

It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not
be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the
fact that the tools are not even being used.

If you are going to add more responsibilities to the CBO, give them
additional tools to assess who the job-creating small businesses are
going to be impacted by this bill.
Dr. Philip Joyce, former CBO staff member, said:

My main message is that most of the tools that you need to
solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in
your toolbox.

Therefore, I am saying if we are putting another tool in the toolbox,
if this bill passes, then give them the ability to make sure that we
are not killing small businesses that are impacted by the HUBZone
funding and assistance.
We already see that small businesses create jobs. I would make the
argument to my colleagues, and I thank Dr. Price for his earlier kind
words about the gist of this legislation, and I would ask for his
reconsideration. This is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to
support it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Jackson Lee
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
113-400 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Israel of New York.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 214, not voting 35, as follows:

[Roll No. 159]

AYES--182

Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar

[[Page H2941]]

Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--214

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--35

Barton
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Costa
Garcia
Garrett
Gosar
Gutierrez
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Lankford
Lofgren
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Noem
Nunes
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Rooney
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Young (IN)

{time} 1303

Messrs. LoBIONDO, BROOKS of Alabama, CAMP, STUTZMAN, Mrs. BACHMANN,
and Mr. MESSER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HECK of Washington, STOCKMAN, CLEAVER, MEADOWS, and PETERSON
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 159 I missed the
vote, but I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 159 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Israel

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Israel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 211, not voting 31, as follows:

[Roll No. 160]

AYES--189

Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--211

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline

[[Page H2942]]

Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--31

Barton
Bass
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Garcia
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Lankford
Lynch
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Noem
Nunes
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)

{time} 1308

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, on Friday, April 4, I missed a
rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on No.
160.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 161]

AYES--186

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--219

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--26

Barton
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Farr
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Lankford
Lynch
Matsui
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)

{time} 1312

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 162]

AYES--185

[[Page H2943]]

DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--222

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--24

Barton
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Lankford
Lynch
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Waxman

{time} 1317

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1874) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for
macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 539, he reported the bill, as amended by that
resolution, back to the House with a further amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. KUSTER. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Kuster moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1874, as
reported, to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Page 3, lines 16 and 17, strike ``(except the Committee
on Appropriations of each House)''.
Page 4, line 4, insert ``America's First Priority Is Job
Creation, Investing in America's Future, and'' before
``Economic Impact''.
Page 4, line 12, insert ``The analysis shall include the
impact of Federal expenditures contained in the applicable
bill or resolution, including investments in education,
transportation, and infrastructure, in promoting job creation
and economic growth.'' after ``product.''.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to suspend with the reading of the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Hampshire is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Mr. Speaker, some of us will support this bill, and some of us will
oppose it; but Republican and Democrat alike, we can all agree on the
need for both parties to work together, invest in our future, and help
create jobs and opportunity for all Americans.
Yes, we must reduce the deficit and tackle our national debt, and
yes, we need to cut wasteful spending whenever we can, but to get the
Federal budget in order, we need to make smart investments to help grow
our economy.
To help American workers and businesses compete and win, we need to
double down on education, job training, research, and infrastructure,
the very foundation of our economy; and yet the legislation we are
debating today disregards the importance of these investments.
This bill will require the Congressional Budget Office to study the
long-term benefits of some proposals, but not others. Under this bill,
the CBO would have to tell us how another tax break would help
billionaires, but not how early investments in education will help
middle class families and long-term economic growth.
That just doesn't make any sense to my constituents in New Hampshire.
Under this bill, the CBO would not analyze the impact of investments
to revitalize our bridges and highways; train our veterans for good
jobs when they return home; prepare students for careers in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics; fund cutting-edge medical
research; or expand our National Network for Manufacturing Innovation,
which is already helping more workers and businesses make it in
America.
These investments make our economy stronger and are of long-term
benefit to our economy. If we are going to

[[Page H2944]]

pass this bill, we should recognize their value. To that end, my
amendment would broaden the underlying bill and apply it to major
investments in education, infrastructure, economic growth, and job
creation--smart investments to help hard-working families all across
our Nation.
These are the issues that the American people want us to focus on, so
let's work together across the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to
improve this bill and to invest in a better future for our children.
I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have very good news for my
friend from New Hampshire. The underlying bill would include
macroeconomic analysis on all of these items: education,
infrastructure, employment, growth, and so much more. Therefore, we
must oppose the MTR, as it is redundant and unnecessary.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 218, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 163]

AYES--187

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--218

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--26

Barton
Bass
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Lankford
Lynch
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Richmond
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.

{time} 1332

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 182, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 164]

AYES--224

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock

[[Page H2945]]

McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--182

Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--25

Barton
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Coble
Farr
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Lankford
Lynch
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Rangel
Richmond
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas) (during the vote). There
are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1341

Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to attending the funeral of
Tuskegee Airman, Chief Master Sergeant Walter H. Richardson, USAF,
Retired, I missed the following rollcall votes: No. 157 through 164 on
April 4, 2014. If present, I would have voted:
Rollcall vote No. 157--H. Res. 539, On Ordering the Previous
Question, ``aye.''
Rollcall vote No. 158--H. Res. 539, On Agreeing to the Resolution,
``aye.''
Rollcall vote No. 159--Connolly of Virginia Amendment to H.R. 1874,
``nay.''
Rollcall vote No. 160--Israel of New York Amendment to H.R. 1874,
``nay.''
Rollcall vote No. 161--Cicilline of Rhode Island Amendment to H.R.
1874, ``nay.''
Rollcall vote No. 162--Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment to H.R. 1874,
``nay.''
Rollcall vote No. 163--H.R. 1874, Motion to Recommit, ``nay.''
Rollcall vote No. 164--H.R. 1874, Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013,
``aye.''

____________________