[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5640-5659]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 5641]]

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.
  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 yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and 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

[[Page 5642]]

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 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

[[Page 5643]]

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 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.

[[Page 5644]]


  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 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

[[Page 5645]]

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 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

[[Page 5646]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5647]]

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 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

[[Page 5648]]

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.
  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.


[[Page 5649]]


  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 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

[[Page 5650]]

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 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

[[Page 5651]]

     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 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

[[Page 5652]]

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 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.

[[Page 5653]]

  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 ``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

[[Page 5654]]

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
     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)

[[Page 5655]]



                             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
     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

  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 186, 
noes 219, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [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

[[Page 5656]]


     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

  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 185, 
noes 222, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 162]

                               AYES--185

     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
     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)

[[Page 5657]]


     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 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)

[[Page 5658]]


     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
     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

[[Page 5659]]


     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.''

                          ____________________