Amendment Text: H.Amdt.919 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/02/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H411 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H396-H419]
                    PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2012

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3582.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 534 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3582.

                              {time}  1405


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide 
for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, with Mr. Dold 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying but it unfortunately bears 
repeating, our budget process is broken.
  Last year, the Senate didn't pass the budget. The year before that, 
the Senate didn't pass the budget. This year, they may not pass one 
again. The greatest threat to our economy now and our children's future 
is a fiscal threat, a debt threat, and yet we are on an unsustainable 
path; and one of the reasons, after the lack of political will among 
our colleagues, is the budget process. It has not been reformed 
substantially since 1974. As a result, many Members of this body have 
put years and hours of effort into fixing this broken process.
  I want to say Mr. Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, and Mr. 
Hensarling, our conference chairman, in particular have been two 
individuals who have put so much work into this. As a result, 10 bills 
are coming out of the Budget Committee. Ten members of the Budget 
Committee are putting together an effort to fix this broken Federal 
budget process to bring more accountability, more transparency, and 
better results so that we can fix this problem.
  This bill is authored by Dr. Price of Georgia, which simply says, 
while we consider large fiscal pieces of legislation, let's have the 
CBO add an analysis so we know what it does to the economy. That's not 
a lot to ask. A lot is happening, and we want to make sure that, as we 
judge large fiscal legislation, that we have the kind of an analysis we 
need to better judge what it does for our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the author of this 
bill, Mr. Price.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will be recognized.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me start by saying to the chairman of the Budget Committee and 
all of the members of the Budget Committee that we appreciated the 
dialogue that we've had on the budget reform bills. There is one bill 
that I understand we'll take up next week where at least the chairman 
of the committee and myself were able to find some bipartisan 
consensus. That's the expedited procedure, legislative line item veto 
bill where you've got some Democrats and Republicans in favor of it, 
and some Democrats and Republicans against it.
  But with respect to the two bills before us today, Mr. Chairman, I'm 
afraid they fall far short. In fact, I think they would take us in the 
wrong direction.
  First of all, just to be clear, because we'll probably hear a lot of 
talk today

[[Page H397]]

about the importance of moving the economy forward and jobs: Neither of 
these bills will do one thing, not one thing to help get our economy 
moving again. They won't do one thing to create and help create jobs in 
this country.
  Now, with respect to this particular piece of legislation that we're 
dealing with now, which actually is a step toward requiring some kind 
of dynamic scoring by CBO and the Joint Tax Committee, it's very 
misleading. Here's the concern. If you look at the current House rules, 
current House rules already require that we have an economic analysis 
for major tax legislation.
  What this particular piece of legislation does is say, yeah, we're 
going to ask for an economic analysis, but it tilts the playing field 
in favor of one kind of fiscal action. So, for example, it says we're 
going to consider whether or not tax policy affects the economy. But 
when it comes to major investments, for example, infrastructure, 
transportation, investments that we all know have historically helped 
this country grow, whether it was the highway system, whether it's been 
investments in other major infrastructure around this country, they've 
all had major economic growth benefits, but those are specifically 
excluded to the extent that they're involved in the appropriations 
process. So we're looking at only one-half of the equation, revenues, 
not important investments, at least to the extent that they go through 
the appropriations process.
  Now, a word on the revenue piece. What's very curious is the way this 
bill is drafted. We would not get an economic analysis on one of the 
most consequential tax changes this body could take in the remaining 
year. We all know that we face the question of what to do with the 
expiring tax cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, both on middle-income 
Americans, but also the tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the 
folks at the very top, the top 2 percent.
  Now, under current House rules, we get an analysis of any legislation 
that was designed to extend those tax cuts going forward. But the way 
this is designed, the statute, we're going to get an answer that says 
well, we're already assuming the tax cuts for the folks at the very top 
are going to go on forever. Now, the reason that's very curious is that 
the Congressional Budget Office has in fact already done analyses in 
the past of what might happen if we were to extend the tax cuts for the 
folks at the very top.
  And if you look at their analyses, and they did one in September of 
2010, you'll find at the end of the 10-year period, they find that 
those tax cuts will slow down economic growth. Why would that be? 
Because those tax cuts add to the deficit. That deficit crowds out 
private investment. That creates a drag on the economy. We had a 
similar conclusion from testimony that was given by the Joint Tax 
Committee in September of 2011, just last September. The same 
conclusion. At the end of the 10-year period, you'd actually have a 
slowdown in economic growth.
  So it's a little perplexing to find out why we're drafting something 
that would not require a study of one of the most consequential 
decisions that this Congress might make.
  And so for those reasons, Mr. Chairman--one, that we're not even 
counting the investment side of the equation with respect to the 
consequences for economic growth, and number two, the fact that this 
isn't even going to trigger an analysis of one of the biggest revenue 
decisions this body will make--we have to oppose the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me first begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Congressman Ryan, who has put in an incredible amount of work, diligent 
work and commitment, in reforming our broken budget process. He and the 
entire committee staff have worked tirelessly to bring about more 
accountability and transparency to this process. I thank them for that. 
In fact, all Americans should thank them.
  Budget reforms would also not be in the spotlight were it not for the 
work of a number of Members, but there's one Member I would like to 
acknowledge specifically, and that's our conference chairman, Jeb 
Hensarling, who has been steadfast for many years championing the 
Family Budget Protection Act of 2007 and the Spending Deficit and Debt 
Control Act of 2009 that focused on reforming our broken budget 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question that our number one priority in 
this body must be enacting policies that help our economy create jobs. 
It is clear that the President's policies have failed and they are 
making the economy worse. Because the President clearly can't run on 
his record, he has denigrated into the process of division and envy 
politics in this country. Terribly distressing.
  House Republicans have a plan. We have got a jobs plan. It is a plan 
to put the American people back to work, and so we are delighted to be 
able to have an opportunity today to talk about one part of that plan.
  The economy is growing way too slowly, as you well know. Not nearly 
enough jobs are being created, which is one of the reasons that we 
introduced H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which as my 
colleague said, could be titled the dynamic scoring act.
  As you well know, the current model for the CBO determines the cost 
of legislative proposals by a static method that doesn't take into 
account macroeconomic factors like increasing revenue, reducing the 
deficit, paying down the debt, things that have economic consequences 
in our society.
  Economists from across the political spectrum agree that major 
legislation considered by Congress has significant effects on economic 
growth, and we ought to be looking at that consequence. While current 
law requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide Congress with 
information on the fiscal impact of all legislation that is reported 
from the committee, there is no requirement for analysis of the 
economic impact. This bill remedies that issue by requiring the 
Congressional Budget Office to provide macroeconomic analysis for all 
bills that have a budgetary impact--this is the threshold--a budgetary 
impact of more than 0.25 percent of the gross domestic product. That 
equals, Mr. Chairman, about $39 billion in 2012.
  This does not change the traditional CBO static scoring method at 
all. This analysis will be in addition to current law. It gives Members 
of Congress more information around which they are able to then make 
appropriate decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that current policy is what 
has been utilized as a baseline for the administration, for the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission, for Domenici-Rivlin. All of those used 
current policy. This notion that we ought not be using current policy 
as a baseline is simply folly.
  In 2011, only six bills met the 0.25 percent GDP threshold, which 
means that the CBO ought not be overworked by having this opportunity 
to provide greater information to Members of Congress.
  Everybody knows that CBO scores in the past have been significantly 
inaccurate. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 is but one example. 
The CBO estimated that that would cost about $206 billion. In fact, it 
was $124 billion. Mr. Chairman, that is a huge difference.
  Past CBO macroeconomic work has shown that Federal deficits and tax 
rates do, in fact, impact the economy. CBO itself has said:
  ``The reduction in Federal borrowing that would result from smaller 
deficits would induce greater national saving and investment and 
thereby increase output and income.''
  Mr. Chairman, more information from CBO will highlight the need to 
act positively on fiscal policy here in Congress. And maybe as 
importantly, this bill will also encourage pro-growth policy ideas from 
all of our colleagues that will help get our economy back on track, 
create jobs, and protect hardworking taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  At the outset of his remarks, Mr. Price referenced the economy and 
the President's plan. I think it is important to remember that when the 
President came before this body for the first

[[Page H398]]

State of the Union address, the economy was in absolute free fall. In 
fact, we now know it was even worse than people realized at the time. 
We were losing GDP at a rate of more than 7 percent.

                              {time}  1420

  We were losing over 800,000 jobs in this country every month. And as 
a result of the passage of the recovery bill, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the same nonpartisan, independent office that this bill is 
asking for a report from, has told Congress that because of the 
recovery bill, we saved or created up to 3 million jobs in 2010. Those 
are the facts reported by the Congressional Budget Office, that we 
helped reduce unemployment in this country in 2011 by over 1.4 percent.
  When you're headed down fast, you've got to stop the slide, pick 
yourself up and begin to climb back up. And that's what the President 
and the earlier Congress did together.
  Now, are we where we want to be? Of course not. That's why it's 
important that we begin to move forward on the jobs plan the President 
asked this Congress to take up last September, major new investment in 
infrastructure, stuff that will really help move the economy. We 
haven't voted on that. I hope we'll move forward on the payroll tax cut 
extension for 160 million Americans. We should do that quickly.
  So let's remember that this economy was in tatters. It has at least 
gotten a little bit back up on its feet, but we have a whole, long way 
to go still. Unfortunately, this bill today won't do one thing--not a 
thing--to help it.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, and I just want to say at the outset 
what a pleasure it is to work with the chairman, the ranking member, 
and the members of the Budget Committee who, I believe, are sincerely 
committed to try to help deal with the deficit situation.
  But what I find rather baffling, I'll have to admit, is that my 
colleagues in the majority continue to turn a blind eye to the power of 
investing so that we can create a major dynamic economy in human 
capital and in our infrastructure. Their only interest, almost to the 
point of a fetish, is to favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of 
growing our economy. And this Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, H.R. 3582, is 
just yet another example of that, Mr. Chairman.
  This legislation would allow Republicans to really understate the 
effect of tax cuts on the deficit--hiding their impact, masking their 
real cost, and paving the way for extensions and new tax policies that 
favor tax cuts only. I mean, Republicans are trying to carve--I have to 
admire their persistence--they want to carve in supply-side economics 
and ``trickle down,'' no matter how long it's failed, into our body 
politic forever. As my dad used to say, money doesn't grow on trees. 
And this is the ``money grows on trees strategy.''
  I'm sorry, but my colleagues have such a strong bias against any 
investments that are not tax cuts; and it shows a lack of interest in 
the investments, I believe, that really have the power to dig us out of 
this hole we're in, investments like early childhood education. Why 
don't we do dynamic scoring on that? Health care, what about scoring 
the impact of what providing health care would do in terms of 
decreasing the costs to our companies?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. I hear from all walks of life that a transportation 
budget, reauthorizing the transportation budget, would be such a boon 
to our economy, training people for the 21st-century skills. But yet 
here's another backdoor approach to include the Bush-era tax cuts into 
the baseline, and we already know that that's $4 trillion worth of 
debt.
  By only allowing for the dynamic effects of tax cuts--not the effect 
of investments in a better way of life for us all--the Republicans are 
showing their true colors again.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our conference chairman.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him and I 
thank our Budget Committee chairman for their kind words and their 
great leadership for fiscal responsibility and job growth.
  Mr. Chairman, indeed, on Monday, the American people were reminded, 
yet again, that this President's policies have failed. It was on Monday 
when the Congressional Budget Office announced that this President is 
on track to be the first President in American history to produce 
trillion-dollar deficits every single year that he's in office. Part of 
what has created these trillion-dollar deficits is the failed stimulus 
program, which my friends on the other side of the aisle still tout.
  The gentleman from Georgia is right: because the President can't run 
for reelection on his failed policies, he has, unfortunately, resorted 
to the politics of division and envy. But, Mr. Chairman, the American 
public isn't interested in a division; they're not interested in envy. 
They are interested in jobs. And in that respect, this President hasn't 
just failed; he has made our economy worse.
  Almost 2 million more Americans have lost their jobs under this 
President's policies. We have the longest sustained period of high 
unemployment since the Great Depression. One in seven are on food 
stamps. That's the reason, Mr. Chairman, that House Republicans have a 
plan for America's job creators. Yesterday, we passed a bill trying to 
repeal a part of the job-killing health care plan of the President.
  Well, today is a very modest step. It says, do you know what, before 
we pass another plan like the President's health care plan, wouldn't it 
be nice to get that report from CBO that estimated another million of 
our fellow countrymen might just lose their jobs. Shouldn't we empower 
Members of Congress with more information? Let's get the jobs that the 
American people so richly need and deserve. Let's empower Members of 
Congress to know how these pieces of legislation are going to impact 
jobs and economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, we must pass the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope if our Republican colleagues are 
going to keep asking CBO for these reports that they'll read those 
reports, because if you read the CBO's analysis of the impact of the 
Recovery Act, they've been very clear that in the year 2010, it helped 
save or create up to 3 million jobs. That's what CBO says. It also says 
in the year 2011, it helped reduce unemployment by over 1.4 percent. 
That's what the Congressional Budget Office says.
  Now we're asking the Congressional Budget Office for a study here. I 
think we should take into account in some of our comments their 
findings that they've already delivered to us. With respect to the 
situation the President inherited, again, the economy was in total free 
fall.
  Yes, it's kind of like when you're trying to run up an escalator 
that's going down really fast. When you first get on, you're going to 
go down until you stop it, until you stop it, and then you take action 
to try to run. You're trying to run in place through the actions you're 
taking. First you don't feel like you're moving up, but we're finally 
moving up.
  The President inherited an economy like an escalator going down very 
fast. And we passed a recovery bill. It stopped the free fall and 
stabilized the economy. We need to take more steps; and I wish our 
colleagues, Republican colleagues, would bring to the floor some of the 
bills that will help it. But let's just remember that for the last 22 
months, we've actually created up to 3 million jobs, in fact, over 3 
million jobs in the economy. Are we where we want to be? No. But let's 
not go back. Let's not go back to the same policies that got us into 
this same mess to begin with.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) who has been very focused on budget issues for a long time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and want to note that today we could be debating a jobs 
package. We could be debating a comprehensive effort to balance our 
budget. But instead, we're focusing on a bill to enshrine failed 
``trickle-down'' policies in our already flawed budget process.

[[Page H399]]

  Now, let's be clear: this bill is designed to make it easier to pass 
large tax cuts without having to find real savings in our current 
budget. It relies on the thoroughly discredited notion that tax cuts do 
not add to the deficit, that they magically pay for themselves.
  This is the height of fiscal recklessness and exemplifies the old 
adage that ``insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and 
expecting different results.''
  After all, Congress experimented with this approach when it passed 
the Reagan tax cuts and again with the George W. Bush tax cuts.

                              {time}  1430

  And the results were soaring deficits. We now find ourselves in 
crippling debt, unable to pay for needed investments in our crumbling 
infrastructure, unable to pay for the education and retraining required 
to maintain American competitiveness in the ever changing global 
economy.
  So I'll vote ``no'' on this tried and failed approach. And I ask 
colleagues to return to the pay-as-you-go rules that helped lead us to 
the balanced budgets and the economic prosperity of the 1990s.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It's curious to listen to my colleague talk 
about his concern about the debt when, in the last 4 years, the 4 years 
of this administration, we have the first 4 years in the history of 
this country where our debt has been greater than $1 trillion--over $5 
trillion built up in debt by this administration.
  I also want to point out to my friend from Maryland, who talks about 
the wonderful impact of the stimulus bill and how it has created all 
sorts of jobs and increased GDP, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, as our 
Members and colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office 
periodically updates the information that they provide as it relates to 
the estimates about what has occurred in the economy from policy here 
in Washington. The most recent update shows an 8 percent increase in 
the real GDP growth from the stimulus bill--now, that's down from 1.7 
percent growth, and that is down from their estimate before--and a .4 
percent reduction in the unemployment rate, which is down from a .8 
percent reduction in the unemployment rate.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if we wait another quarter or two, we're going to 
see that, in fact, the real information is out, and that is that the 
stimulus bill had no effect or a detrimental effect on the economy.
  With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Georgia, Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely critical that 
lawmakers in Washington are informed and aware of how legislation that 
we introduce will impact our country's economic growth, so today I rise 
in strong support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which will basically 
give us that information.
  If this legislation had already been passed, perhaps our economy 
wouldn't be saddled with the effects of the President's health care 
takeover, the stimulus bill, and other legislative nightmares all 
produced by my Democrat colleagues. These only tie up our small 
businesses, bog down our job creators, and further bury our economy in 
massive Federal debt.
  If we had any idea of how chilling the effects of these bills would 
be on jobs and our economy, maybe we would have done the smart thing, 
which would have been not to pass them and instead stayed within the 
boundaries of our budget. Except, well, I forgot. We still don't have a 
budget, thanks to the obstruction of Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
  That's why I introduced my Budget or Bust Act just today. It would 
literally force the House and the Senate to pass a budget or else their 
salaries would be held hostage until Congress does its job. My bill 
would also restore the power of the purse to its rightful owner, which 
our Founding Fathers specifically gave to Congress, not to the 
President.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act and 
my Budget or Bust Act so that we can truly understand how our 
legislation affects the economy, and so that Washington is finally 
forced to live within its means and Congress is held responsible and 
accountable, as hardworking taxpayers deserve.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the Member for yielding.
  The simple question now before us is whether it's better for Congress 
to have more information or less information when it's deliberating on 
matters that directly affect the economy of our Nation. You'd think the 
answer would be self-evident, but apparently some Members of this House 
prefer blissful ignorance rather than going to all of the fuss and 
bother of actually assessing the full ramifications of the policies 
that they are enacting. That explains a lot about some of the decisions 
they've made around here in recent years.
  The economy is a dynamic and fast changing thing, responding rapidly 
to every tax and regulation imposed by government and every dollar that 
changes hands in markets. Yet the rules under which the Congressional 
Budget Office operates severely constrain its ability to take this 
obvious reality into account in the information that it provides us.
  This measure doesn't presume to tell the CBO how to do its job or 
what formula to use in its analysis. It doesn't even change the 
outmoded static modeling it uses to score the fiscal impact of measures 
coming before us. All that it says is: Give us the complete picture. If 
a proposal is going to affect the economy significantly, for good or 
ill, tell us, tell us what you think and show us why you think so.
  I think Patrick Henry summed up this bill perfectly when he said, 
``For my part, no matter what anguish of spirit it may cost, I am 
willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for 
it.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. McClintock that more 
information is helpful. We just don't want to ask for the information 
in a way that we only get one side of the story.
  I hope our colleagues are going to vote for the amendment a little 
later on the floor that says we should also try and figure out what the 
economic impact of major investments in infrastructure is through the 
appropriations process. They've removed that analysis from this bill.
  In addition to the fact, it's very curious that when it comes to tax 
policy, they've written this in a way that when CBO does an analysis 
of, again, the major decision that would be made by this body in the 
next few years, whether or not to extend some or all of the 2001/2003 
tax cuts, that will show no impact on economic growth because of the 
way they've written this legislation, when, in fact, we know, at least 
from earlier CBO reports, that in the out-years, 10 years out, it will 
actually be a drag on economic growth because it will increase the 
deficit when you allow the tax cuts for the folks at the top to go on 
and on and on.
  So, yes, we want more information. Let's just not ask CBO for 
information that is designed to only extract one side of the story. 
And, unfortunately, that's what the bill does in its current form.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm a bit amused, Mr. Chairman, by the tack 
that the other side is taking on this as they talk about gaming the 
system, if you will, with this piece of legislation. I would simply 
call my colleague's attention to the bill itself.
  The definition of macroeconomic impact analysis in the bill simply 
states:
  Estimate of changes of economic output, employment, capital stock, 
tax revenue, an estimate of revenue feedback expected as a result of 
the enactment of a proposal and the critical assumptions for how they 
got there.
  There isn't any qualitative assessment assigned to this. It's simply, 
give us more information, as the gentleman from California said.
  So it's a bit perplexing why, again, our colleagues on the other side 
don't want that additional information with which to make decisions, 
high-quality decisions here in Washington.
  With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Flores).

[[Page H400]]

  Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, although the Obama administration may tout signs that 
the economy is improving, we are still way below past economic 
recoveries. The reality is the economy is growing too slowly and not 
creating enough jobs.
  Economists agree that legislation considered by Congress can have 
significant impacts on economic growth, both positive and negative. In 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported this week that we are on 
track to have our fourth $1 trillion deficit in a row, despite 
President Obama's earlier campaign promise to cut the deficit in half 
by the end of his first term. At such a critical time, we should ensure 
that all lawmakers have as much information as possible about the 
effects of proposed legislation on economic growth and job creation.
  The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 would require CBO to provide 
lawmakers with a macroeconomic impact analysis for all major 
legislation reported by a House or Senate committee. The economic 
analysis would describe the potential economic impact of all major 
bills or major economic variables, including real gross domestic 
product, business investment, capital stock, employment, and labor. It 
would also describe the potential fiscal impacts of the bill, including 
any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes 
in gross domestic product.

                              {time}  1440

  If the last Congress had had this type of real-world economic 
analysis, it would have never passed the job-killing Democrat takeover 
of our Nation's health care system in 2010.
  In addition, if the last Democratic-led Congress would have known 
this information when it passed its $800 billion stimulus bill, it 
would have known that the elusive millions of jobs that it claimed to 
create were going to cost about $400,000 per job. This $400,000 is 
about the same amount as the total salaries of seven middle class 
Americans.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act of 2012, so that we may promote pro-growth policies that 
will help get our economy back on track, reduce the deficit, and 
protect hardworking taxpayers.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I go back to the fact that you're asking CBO to only give one 
side of the story, and I would just refer Mr. Price, my friend, 
colleague, to page 3 of the bill, lines 12 through 16, where you say, 
the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, 
prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any committee of 
the House of Representatives or Senate, in parentheses, except the 
Committee on Appropriations of each House.
  I go back to the fact that every American knows that when we invest 
in our infrastructure, when the companies invest in their plants and 
equipment, when we invest in our roads and our bridges and our 
highways, that can have a positive economic impact. In fact, if this 
House of Representatives were to take up the President's jobs bill, 
which he asked us to pass in September, that would invest more in our 
infrastructure, that would help the economy.
  Of course, you wouldn't want to know, apparently, about the positive 
impact on the economy of the President's jobs bill because that 
involves investment through the transportation process. So, it does 
tilt the field in a significant way when it comes to decisions we make 
here with resources.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my 
colleague on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This bill, like most that come out here from the 
Republicans, has a great name. It's a Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It's 
not a pro-growth budget--big difference--but a Pro-Growth Budgeting 
Act. And like so many of the pieces of legislation that they offer us, 
the substance of the bill does exactly the opposite of the title.
  This would better be named the ``Dig Deeper Now'' legislation, or the 
``Mandate Voodoo Economics'' legislation. It attempts to enshrine 
Republican dogma that even an elementary arithmetic student would have 
some question about. It's based on the theology that the best way to 
get more is to do less; that if you have less revenue coming in, you 
somehow will eventually get more revenue coming in. And it just hasn't 
worked that way.
  Their approach is much like the alchemist of old, who, when faced 
with a problem that he could not convert straw into gold, simply 
responds, give me more straw. They can't get enough straw in the form 
of tax cuts to talk about at their political conventions. But when they 
apply them, we don't need dynamic scoring to know what the effect is. 
We have history, and that history is not very favorable to this whole 
concept that somehow less means more.
  We have the ``dynamic'' Bush tax cuts to look at and what their 
effect has been. And the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the 
effect has been they cost $1 trillion, $1 trillion toward the budget 
deficit that we have, and if we extend the Bush tax cuts for those at 
the very top, again, it will cost another trillion dollars. That's 
trillion with a ``t'' in both cases, and it is a big impact in digging 
us into the hole that we're in, that we're trying to work our way out 
of with what should be a Pro-Growth Budget Act, a jobs act, instead of 
something that is a name that bears no resemblance to the substance of 
the bill.
  How about the experience with economic growth? What American would 
not like to have the economic growth of the Clinton years, when the tax 
rates were actually higher than the experience of the Bush years, where 
the tax rates may have been lower, but so was the economic growth, 
almost 4 percent a year under President Clinton, and down to about 2 
percent under President Bush from 2001 to 2008.
  Likewise, with job growth, dynamic job growth under President 
Clinton, job losses under President Bush. That's the history, the 
experience that we have with this theory, this ideology that somehow 
less revenue means more revenue.
  Only yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we heard the testimony of 
the Congressional Budget Office, objective testimony, that if we 
extend----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We heard objective testimony that if we extend all of 
the Bush tax cuts for the next decade, we will have less economic 
growth in this country, not more economic growth, as their theology 
maintains. And the testimony we're hearing is not limited to Democratic 
witnesses. Even the Republican witnesses who have come before our 
committees in the past have conceded that these Bush tax cuts did not 
pay for themselves.
  We've seen the result of voodoo economics. We've seen the results of 
supply side and trickle down. It's time to take a more dynamic approach 
for the American economy, and that's a jobs bill that will meet the 
needs of working families across this country instead of playing games 
with the numbers and trying to show that the impossible is reality.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it's kind of like ``Alice in Wonderland'' actually. I 
mean, if the gentleman truly wants to have the information that he is 
demanding, then he ought to be supporting the bill because what he's 
talking about is dynamism in the economy, and that's what we ought to 
be looking at, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we need the information to be 
able to provide us with the kind of data that will allow us to make the 
best decisions.
  For example, this is a chart that shows the employment in this 
country, and the tax reductions of the last decade demonstrate that 
employment goes up and unemployment comes down. And then when the 
stimulus bill that the other side amazingly still wants to tout as the 
be all and the end all, when it's passed, what happens, Mr. Chairman? 
Employment plummets. Unemployment skyrockets.
  So the gentleman can go back to the nineties, yes, but what we're 
living in right now is 2012, and the policies aren't working. So what 
we need to do is be able to provide, hopefully, Members of Congress 
with more information so they're able to make wiser decisions.

[[Page H401]]

  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act. Just yesterday, the Budget Committee had the opportunity 
to question the CBO Director about the impact of the President's 
stimulus on the economy. A few months earlier, his office and mine had 
a very public debate about the impact of government spending on the 
economy. When asked to identify a single program, one single program 
that positively impacted the economy, the CBO could not identify one 
program.
  Then, during the Budget Committee hearing, I asked the Director, is 
it fair to say that the massive spending of 2009 did not benefit the 
economy? He said, and I quote: ``The extra government spending from the 
Recovery Act in 2009 boosted the economy in the short term, but we 
believe, unless there are offsetting changes, the economy will be worse 
off.'' From the CBO.
  Legislation like the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will require the CBO to 
undertake a full analysis of every major legislation, including impacts 
on the employment and labor supply. Had the previous Congress been able 
to review the long-term impacts and consequences of a $1 trillion 
stimulus boondoggle, perhaps our economy would be better off today. 
Perhaps the more than 20 million Americans--that's right, 20 million 
Americans--who are unemployed or underemployed would actually have a 
job.
  Those who care solely about the short-term concern themselves with 
political gain at the expense of the future. Today I ask my colleagues 
to support this legislation because they care about the long term, 
about the next generation, even if it means their short-term political 
gains cannot be realized.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the gentleman raised the question of the long 
term, and it begs the question about why this bill is written in a way 
such that we would not be requiring an economic analysis of the major 
change of law that we may be making with respect to tax policy, which 
would be to extend the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, all or some of them.

                              {time}  1450

  Let's talk about the long term because, in fact, the Joint Committee 
on Taxation which, of course, is the entity that does the tax analysis 
for the Congressional Budget Office, has said that at the end of that 
10-year period, extending those tax cuts actually slows down the 
economy--page 6 of the testimony of the staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation before the House Committee on Ways and Means, September 21, 
2011.
  What they point out is that at the end of the 10-year period, you're 
losing GDP growth. Again, why? Because if you have big tax cuts that 
are financed by borrowing, as the Republican rules of the House were 
changed to allow, Hey, we can provide tax cuts for folks at the very 
top, put it on the credit card, no more pay-as-you-go, that increases 
the deficit. You increase the deficit, as the economy begins to 
recover, that's when it really begins to crowd out private investment.
  So those tax cuts begin to slow down the economy in the end of the 
10-year period, and they're not an efficient use--especially the tax 
breaks for the folks at the top 2 percent--it's not an efficient means 
to getting the economy moving again.
  We saw in the 1990s under President Clinton we had a higher top 
marginal tax rate: 20 million jobs were created, booming economic 
times.
  So I'm glad the previous gentlemen raised the issue of the long term. 
Again, we're all a little perplexed about why this bill is written in a 
way that the major change in law that we could make either this year or 
next year with respect to the full or partial extension of the tax cuts 
wouldn't even trigger this economic analysis. That is astounding.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point 
out the CBO Director, indeed, did say the long-term effects of the 
stimulus are actually depressing, potentially depressing, on the 
economy. So that's why we need the big picture. That's why we need a 
dynamic scoring model, an opportunity to look at the macroeconomic 
impact of legislation that's considered in this Congress in a 
responsible way.
  I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act of 2012.
  This would require the CBO to provide lawmakers with macroeconomic 
impact analysis for major legislation defined by budgetary impact 
greater than 0.25 percent of annual GDP. Pretty simple.
  Current law already requires CBO to provide Congress with the fiscal 
impact. This bill would require the CBO to give us the economic impact. 
Now, included in the analysis would be a statement of critical 
assumptions and also sources of data underlying its estimate, which 
would provide for maximum transparency.
  So if there were questions, we would have the information in front of 
us so that we could ask additional questions and be sure that we had 
all of the information in order to make an informed decision.
  This is just another tool in our toolkit, and this will help Congress 
create policy that affects our economy while creating a pro-job agenda, 
which is on all of our minds and should be our priority. The more 
information available to policymakers, the better decisions.
  There is no panacea in the budget process, but this is one more step 
in reforming what is a broken process; and we're going to see more 
information and more bills in the next several weeks talking about this 
broken process. But this is one more piece to give us one more piece of 
information.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I just have to emphasize again, I 
already read from the portion of the bill that says we want economic 
analyses of major pieces of legislation except from the Committee on 
Appropriations. Again, transportation and infrastructure investments 
over the history of our country have provided important economic 
growth.
  The President asked this Congress to take up his infrastructure 
investment jobs bill last September. Congress hasn't taken it up, and 
now apparently we don't want to include in the study the positive 
economic impact that something like that would have.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. What time remains, if I may ask?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman, 
as he well knows, that current law, section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of '74, requires that CBO produce cost estimates of 
legislation reported out of every committee except the Committee on 
Appropriations. To believe that a 1-year appropriations bill could have 
a CBO assessment of the economic impact 40 years out, which is their 
appropriate and usual window, it is just nonsensical. So current law 
simply states that CBO looks at committee action and not appropriations 
and for good reason.
  I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank my friend from Georgia 
for yielding. I just want to tell him how proud I am of him for 
bringing this legislation forward. I know he doesn't need my accolades; 
but this is the kind of commonsense material that I ran on and that, as 
a freshman in this body, makes me proud to be able to vote on.
  I brought a copy of the legislation with me, Mr. Chairman. I think if 
you ask folks across the country, they sometimes wonder whether or not 
we read this legislation.
  If folks go to www.thomas.gov, they can actually read the legislation 
themselves, Mr. Chairman. These things that we're arguing about, they 
wonder what the truth is. It's only five pages long in its substance.
  Let me tell you what it says, Mr. Chairman, if you haven't seen it: 
The analysis prepared shall describe the potential economic impact of 
the applicable major bill of resolution on major economic variables, 
including real GDP, business investment, capital stock, employment, and 
labor supply.

[[Page H402]]

The analysis shall also talk about revenue increases or decreases that 
result. The analysis should also specify which models were used, what 
your sources of data were, and shall provide an explanation as 
necessary to make the models comprehensible to the public.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides one more tool that the American 
people and this Congress can use to evaluate the very important 
legislation that is considered here on this floor.
  I hope you will ask your constituents, Mr. Chairman, why is it that 
folks would oppose giving the American people these answers. You heard 
me read the bill. All this bill does is provide that information.
  I will say to the sponsor of this legislation that information has 
been missing for far, far too long. I plan to lend my strong support to 
this legislation. I thank the gentleman for the time and for his 
courage in bringing this bill forward.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's mistaken. I mean, we do 
get analyses now with respect to the economic impact. There's a 
provision in the House rules that I referenced earlier that asked for 
that, and in fact, Joint Tax has done exactly that. The figures I was 
reading with respect to the negative impact on growth in the out-years 
were from a dynamic analysis the Joint Tax Committee has done pursuant 
to House rules.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will not on my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman if he would 
yield.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I refer the gentleman to the bill, the 
piece of the document I've referenced several times already. This kind 
of work is done.
  What you're asking for here is to, again, leave off part of the 
equation, for example, the recovery bill. The recovery bill was 
primarily an appropriations bill. Leave off part of the equation, but 
also when it comes to the revenue piece, skew the request.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his 
leadership.
  What we're talking about here this afternoon is one of a package of 
four budget proposals from our Republican friends on the Budget 
Committee that are, in toto, going to obscure the budgeting process, 
make it more complex, more expensive, and actually more confusing for 
the American public.
  I agree with what my good friend said about the dynamic scoring. 
There are already vehicles available to be able to deal with some of 
these feedback effects but not elevating it to the level of some sort 
of official score. Frankly, we've seen when the CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, which is established as the impartial scorekeeper, puts 
out information, like we discussed here today in the Budget Committee, 
on how much impact the Recovery Act had on employment, on GDP 
enhancement, on job growth. People just simply refuse to accept the 
range, the calculations, things that all the independent experts agree 
upon, including our own official one. So we're going to make their job 
more confusing; we're going to make it more complex and give the 
American public a less clear picture.
  Get ready folks. My good friend from Georgia wants to deal with 
freezing all baseline budgets, that are not otherwise specified in law, 
assuming that there will be no increase for population growth or 
inflation over 10 years. Everybody in Congress who looks at what has 
happened over the last 50 years understands there will be some 
adjustment--we may argue about how much--but if you're going to give 
the American public an estimate of what is the most likely outcome, 
having a modest inflation adjustment is the most accurate in terms of 
what is likely to happen. That would be swept away and an artificial 
figure established by biennial budgeting.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. There is a reason why the number of States, almost 
all of which used to have biennial budgeting, have moved to annual 
budgets. It's because they're more accurate; they're less complex; 
they're less expensive; and it doesn't pose as much of a burden on both 
the legislative branch and the administration to try and fiddle around 
with things that we know are inaccurate. Then we're going to have the 
risk adjustment, which will take something which is already accurately 
portrayed in terms of the budget, and they're going to be adding and 
subtracting values that are going to only confuse.
  The four of them are an example of why my friends on the other side 
of the aisle don't want to get to work and deal with things that we 
might agree on, like reforming agriculture. Instead, we're playing 
games with procedures that are going to give the American public less 
information, and it's going to cost us more to confuse them.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman talking about other 
pieces of legislation.
  But what we're talking about here is more information, more 
information for our colleagues, Mr. Chairman; and for the life of me, I 
can't figure out why our Democratic friends on the other side of the 
aisle simply, I guess, want to keep our colleagues in the dark here so 
that we can continue to make the kinds of decisions that we've been 
making. It's just astounding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act 
brought today by my friend and colleague Congressman Tom Price. This 
good piece of legislation is a commonsense solution to the growing debt 
and deficit causing concern among many Arizonans.
  While I may be new to D.C. and the Halls of Congress, I am not new to 
the impacts of Federal regulations and the devastating effects of 
Congress' ability to live within its means. As a dentist and a small 
business owner for over 25 years, I faced the uncertainty of additional 
tax and regulatory burdens because the Federal Government failed to do 
long-term planning.
  This bill states that the Congressional Budget Office provide Members 
of Congress an analysis of the real and long-term effects that a piece 
of legislation would have on the economy. This, my friends, should be a 
no-brainer. It is a necessary step towards taking and regaining fiscal 
sanity in this Nation. Making wise decisions starts by being properly 
informed on the facts and the information.
  Again, I support this legislation, and I encourage the passage of 
this good bill today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is a reason that this institution of Congress is so discredited 
among the American people. The reason is quite simple. Instead of 
facing the problem, we come up with ways to avoid it. These two bills--
dynamic scoring, which basically has as a premise that any tax cut is 
going to increase revenues, and baseline reform, which essentially says 
that inflation is not a factor in depleting resources to meet a need, 
whether it's the Pentagon or it's health care--we think that somehow 
that is going to solve the problem with the debt, which is a serious 
problem in this country.
  Do you know what? It's time for Congress to acknowledge the obvious, 
which is that the problem is the problem. These runaround reforms about 
the process avoids the direct, head-on confrontation that is the debt, 
and the debt is a function of too much spending and too little revenue.
  Bottom line, if you are a household, if you're a local government, if 
you're someone who is responsible, when you have a debt problem, you're 
going to look at everything; you're going to put

[[Page H403]]

it all on the table. There are 100 Members of the House of 
Representatives who signed a letter and said, Hey, let's put everything 
on the table--revenues and spending. It's the only way we're going to 
get a solution.
  This approach is avoiding that. It's locking down on the notion that 
any tax cut is going to increase revenues. It's locking down on the 
notion that revenues cannot be part of the solution, and it's locking 
down on this notion that if you wipe away inflation as a factor in what 
we need to do to maintain level funding that somehow we'll still meet 
the needs.
  We had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan--two wars that weren't paid for, 
both on the credit card. We had the Medicare prescription drug program 
on the credit card. Whether you supported those as a Democrat or as a 
Republican--and we had people on both sides of the aisle who did--
you've got to pay for it. We didn't pay for it. We're paying now the 
consequences of it.
  As to the so-called ``reforms'' about the process, it's always 
legitimate to figure out the process--how can we do it better? How can 
we get better information?--but not when it means we avoid the problem.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little perplexed by 
the arguments being used in opposition on the other side.
  My friend from Vermont says that this assumes that there is a certain 
premise about tax cuts. Well, the bill doesn't even use the language 
``tax cuts.'' It uses ``tax revenue.'' It could be a tax reduction. It 
could be a tax increase. Let's look. Let's find the information. Let's 
give our colleagues as much information as possible, which, again, is 
what my friend from Vermont says every family in this country does when 
they have a challenge. If they have a debt challenge, they get all of 
the information that they can. That's simply what we're asking here, 
which is to provide as much information as possible for Members of 
Congress to make wiser decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm so pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
South Carolina and a member of the committee, Mr. Mulvaney.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  As we sit like good Congressmen and -women in our offices and as we 
watch these debates on television, sometimes we feel compelled to run 
over and participate in the debate. Certainly, that's what drove me 
over here today, and it's hard to know where to start. There is a long 
list of things that we could talk about here today.
  Mr. Chairman, we could start, for example, with the gentleman from 
Maryland, who offered again today, as he did in the Budget Committee, 
the suggestion that perhaps the Recovery Act generated as many as 6 
million jobs. If you actually listen very closely to what he says and 
read the documents that he cites, that's up to 6 million jobs saved or 
created. The truth of the matter is we could make just as easily the 
argument that the number is closer to 1.2 million jobs saved or 
created, and that's assuming that a job saved is a job created. We 
could have a discussion as to whether or not we should have been 
spending $400,000 per job, but that's not the reason we're here.
  So I would suggest to my friends across the aisle, if they really 
believed that the Recovery Act was so wonderful, bring it up again. 
Please offer us another one. In fact, bring us one twice the size, and 
look the American people in the eye and say that $800 billion wasn't 
enough, that we want $1.6 trillion worth of another stimulus bill. 
Please, bring that, and let the President defend that as we have this 
discussion between now and November.
  You could also, Mr. Chairman, go into more detail about what the 
gentleman from North Carolina mentioned about the PAYGO rules, which is 
something I'm a little bit familiar with. My predecessor was a big 
supporter of the PAYGO rules. The PAYGO rules were in place when this 
government ran up its largest deficits in history. The rule was never 
designed to cut spending, and it was never designed to lower the 
deficit. It never accomplished what folks so fondly, in hindsight, 
believe that it did in the late 1990s. You could go back and look. 
Really, what drove the surpluses of the late 1990s was the reduction in 
the size of the Federal Government. But, again, it's not what we're 
here to talk about today.

                              {time}  1510

  What the gentleman from Texas was talking about, however, is spot on, 
and he would come to the well, as so many folks on the other side will, 
and say that, well, it was those Bush tax cuts that really got us in 
the hole that we're in. I don't know why we call them the Bush tax 
cuts, by the way.
  They were extended by a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate and 
a Democrat House at the end of 2010. I have always referred to them as 
the Bush-Obama tax cuts, but that doesn't seem to catch on.
  But the assertion has always been that after those tax cuts, Mr. 
Chairman, went into place that revenues went down, that when we cut 
taxes revenue went down, because certainly that's what the CBO, under 
the current rules, would tell you would happen. Under the static models 
that are in place now, when we supposedly cut taxes, the CBO will tell 
you, well, if you lower the tax rates, revenues will go down.
  Unequivocally, this is not what happened with the Bush tax cuts in 
2000s. Revenues went up every year from 2003 to the beginning of the 
great recession.
  That's why this bill is so important, Mr. Chairman. Washington does 
not know how to count. We count in this town in a fashion that only 
this town counts. The whole rest of the world doesn't understand how we 
count, and the CBO scoring is a big part of that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, that's why I respectfully suggest that we need to pass 
this bill and send it over to the Senate.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of Mr. Price if he has 
any further speakers?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Look, I think everybody in this body understands that the more good 
information we get the better. That's why it's troubling that in this 
particular bill we're asking the question of CBO in a way that will 
only give us partial information. I already mentioned that we left out 
the impact, the economic impact from what we think should be included.
  We think the appropriations investments in transportation should be 
included in any economic analysis. Clearly, important investments we 
make in science and research and innovation and our infrastructure have 
an economic impact, but this doesn't ask for any of that information. 
There'll be some amendments that say we should. Hopefully our 
colleagues will vote for them.
  But what is very bizarre is the way this is structured so that it 
doesn't require a macroeconomic, dynamic analysis of the major change 
in law that we will make with respect to whether or not to extend all 
or some of the tax cuts, because the way it's written, it will assume 
those tax cuts are already in place.
  Now, we've already had an analysis that was done by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, a macroeconomic dynamic analysis. It does say at 
the end of that period it would actually have a drag on the economy 
because it increases the deficit.
  So let's make sure that we get full information, and that's where I 
do want to end, by just pointing out that the most recent estimates 
from the Congressional Budget Office, in terms of the impact of the 
recovery bill, was in a document dated November of 2011, and there's a 
chart in there that shows a range. Obviously since the recovery bill is 
no longer in full effect in this current year, you don't continue to 
say the positive impacts.
  But Dr. Elmendorf has testified numerous times before the Budget 
Committee and indicated that had it not been for the passage of the 
recovery bill, had it not been for actions of the Federal Reserve, 
economic growth today would be much slower. That would mean more people 
out of work.
  We need to do better. We need to get things moving faster. That's why 
we should take up the President's jobs bill that has been sitting in 
this House since September. That's why I hope the conference committee 
on the payroll tax cut extension for 160 million people

[[Page H404]]

will get our job done quickly so that we can provide those 
opportunities to help the economy grow when it's in this very fragile 
state.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I just close by saying we all want information. 
Let's just not ask for information in a selective way designed to get a 
preconceived answer.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments, and I appreciate his perspective.
  However, it's clear that every single revised report on the stimulus 
comes up and states that it is costing more. It's costing the economy 
more and that the jobs that are created, ``created,'' decrease every 
time there is a new estimate. And so we're approaching zero jobs saved 
or created. In a short time I suspect we'll be at jobs lost from the 
stimulus.
  In fact, the CBO Director yesterday, in committee, said, The extra 
government spending from the Recovery Act of 2009, unless there are 
offsetting changes made that pay off the extra debt that was incurred, 
the economy will be worse off. So it's interesting to see our 
colleagues on the other side continue to grab onto what they think is a 
lifeline of the stimulus bill that with time looks worse and worse. And 
maybe, Mr. Chairman, if we had only had this piece of legislation at 
the time of the adoption of the stimulus bill, so-called stimulus bill, 
maybe somebody would have thought differently. Maybe they would have 
recognized that, in fact, that it was going to have the real effect 
that it has, which is to decrease the vitality of the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, it's pretty doggone simple. This bill is pretty simple. 
You want more information or you want less information.
  This is remarkable common sense. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that 
it ought to be common ground upon which this House can stand. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, while I am pleased that this Congress is 
looking at reforming the budget process, I do not believe this 
legislation is the solution. The biggest problem with the budget is 
that, while the game may not be perfect, the players are the reason it 
is not working. Even Jim Nussle, former Republican Chairman of the 
House Budget Committee and Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget for President G.W. Bush, testified that, ``It may not be that 
the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that the 
tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not being 
used.''
  It is no surprise that since Day One of this Tea Party Congress, the 
majority has pushed forward with an array of anti-worker, anti-
environment, anti-oversight, and anti-growth agenda, that serves the 
politics of their caucus rather than the citizens of this great Nation. 
The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011 encompasses this perfectly.
  As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I'm very familiar 
with the ``Dynamic Scoring'' song and dance. Dynamic Scoring seeks to 
skirt the fundamentals of Economics 101: less revenue means less money 
and higher deficits. Instead, under this bill and its dynamic scoring, 
we will assume tax cuts produce fantasy levels of economic growth and 
pay for themselves.
  The proof is in the pudding. We don't have to look far to see what 
happened with Bush tax cuts. They led to an explosion of our national 
debt, and as a new CBO report points out, we could decrease the deficit 
by almost half if we let the Bush tax cut expire.
  We should not enshrine this dishonest, Enron style accounting into 
law when we have such clear evidence that it is inaccurate. If our goal 
is to reform the budget process so we can enact sound fiscal policy, 
then this legislation must be rejected.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Budget, printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
the text of the Rules Committee print 112-10 dated January 25, 2012. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3582

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 
     2012''.

     SEC. 2. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES.

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

          ``MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MAJOR LEGISLATION

       ``Sec. 407. (a) Congressional Budget Office.--The 
     Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, 
     prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any 
     committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     (except the Committee on Appropriations of each House), as a 
     supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, a 
     macroeconomic impact analysis of the budgetary effects of 
     such bill or resolution for the ten fiscal-year period 
     beginning with the first fiscal year for which an estimate 
     was prepared under section 402 and each of the next three ten 
     fiscal-year periods. Such estimate shall be predicated upon 
     the supplemental projection described in section 202(e)(4). 
     The Director shall submit to such committee the macroeconomic 
     impact analysis, together with the basis for the analysis. As 
     a supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, all 
     such information so submitted shall be included in the report 
     accompanying such bill or resolution.
       ``(b) Economic Impact.--The analysis prepared under 
     subsection (a) shall describe the potential economic impact 
     of the applicable major bill or resolution on major economic 
     variables, including real gross domestic product, business 
     investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply. 
     The analysis shall also describe the potential fiscal effects 
     of the bill or resolution, including any estimates of revenue 
     increases or decreases resulting from changes in gross 
     domestic product. To the extent practicable, the analysis 
     should use a variety of economic models in order to reflect 
     the full range of possible economic outcomes resulting from 
     the bill or resolution. The analysis (or a technical appendix 
     to the analysis) shall specify the economic and econometric 
     models used, sources of data, relevant data transformations, 
     and shall include such explanation as is necessary to make 
     the models comprehensible to academic and public policy 
     analysts.
       ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `macroeconomic impact analysis' means--
       ``(A) an estimate of the changes in economic output, 
     employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to 
     result from enactment of the proposal;
       ``(B) an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result 
     from enactment of the proposal; and
       ``(C) a statement identifying the critical assumptions and 
     the source of data underlying that estimate;
       ``(2) the term `major bill or resolution' means any bill or 
     resolution if the gross budgetary effects of such bill or 
     resolution for any fiscal year in the period for which an 
     estimate is prepared under section 402 is estimated to be 
     greater than .25 percent of the current projected gross 
     domestic product of the United States for any such fiscal 
     year;
       ``(3) the term `budgetary effect', when applied to a major 
     bill or resolution, means the changes in revenues, outlays, 
     deficits, and debt resulting from that measure; and
       ``(4) the term `revenue feedback' means changes in revenue 
     resulting from changes in economic growth as the result of 
     the enactment of any major bill or resolution.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 406 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CBO REPORT TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.

       Section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4)(A) After the President's budget submission under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in addition 
     to the baseline projections, the Director shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate a supplemental projection assuming extension of 
     current tax policy for the fiscal year commencing on October 
     1 of that year with a supplemental projection for the 10 
     fiscal-year period beginning with that fiscal year, assuming 
     the extension of current tax policy.
       ``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term `current 
     tax policy' means the tax policy in statute as of December 31 
     of the current year assuming--
       ``(i) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
       ``(ii) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
       ``(iii) the continued application of the alternative 
     minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011 
     pursuant to title II of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
     Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, 
     assuming that for taxable years beginning after 2011 the 
     exemption amount shall equal--
       ``(I) the exemption amount for taxable years beginning in 
     2011, as indexed for inflation; or
       ``(II) if a subsequent law modifies the exemption amount 
     for later taxable years, the modified exemption amount, as 
     indexed for inflation; and

[[Page H405]]

       ``(iv) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, 
     and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III 
     of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, 
     and Job Creation Act of 2010.
       ``(5) On or before July 1 of each year, the Director shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Long-Term Budget Outlook 
     for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year and 
     at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 112-383. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. PETERS. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 1, after ``SHORT TITLE'' insert ``; 
     FINDINGS''.
       Page 1, line 2, insert ``(a) Short Title.--'' before ``This 
     Act''.
       Page 1, after line 3, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari 
     Fleischer said that President Bush believed that the tax cut 
     package enacted in 2001 and expanded in 2003 would ``create 
     additional revenues for the Federal Government and pay for 
     itself.''.
       (2) Before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted, the 
     Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising 
     surpluses, from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2001 
     to 5.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2011, with the 
     Federal Government operating debt free by 2009.
       (3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax 
     cuts of 2001 and 2003 have added over $2 trillion to budget 
     deficits from 2002-2011.
       (4) Despite signing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 into law, 
     President George W. Bush's administration had, according to 
     the Wall Street Journal, ``the worst track record for job 
     creation since the government began keeping records'' in 
     1939.
       (5) From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the 
     slowest pace for any eight-year span since 1953.
       (6) Median household income declined during the Bush 
     Administration for the first time since 1967, when this data 
     began to be tracked.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Peters 
amendment to H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012.
  As we consider legislation that would mandate the Congressional 
Budget Office use dynamic scoring to evaluate the macroeconomic impact 
of large tax cuts, we literally cannot afford to ignore the lessons of 
the past decade.
  My Republican colleagues want to enact a seemingly subtle change so 
that they can more easily advance their agenda of tax cuts for the rich 
while slashing critical programs that American families and workers 
rely on each and every day.
  Dynamic scoring's supporters back this legislation in large part 
because it can mask the cost of tax cuts while ignoring the multiplier 
effects that investments in education, public health, and 
infrastructure can provide.
  In order to evaluate these claims, we need only look at the claims 
made by those who supported the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and see how they 
stacked up next to reality. Despite pledges from the Bush 
administration that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 would generate such 
significant economic activity that they would pay for themselves, we 
know that this is not the case.
  This is why I have put forward an amendment that will simply add a 
factual findings section that details the impact of the tax cuts of 
2001 and 2003 without altering the functional aspects of the bill.
  These findings include:
  1. On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said 
that President Bush believed that the tax cut package enacted in 2001 
and expanded in 2003 would ``create additional revenues for the Federal 
Government and pay for itself.''

                              {time}  1520

  Two, before the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 were enacted, the 
Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising surpluses, from 
2.7 percent of gross national product in 2001, to 5.3 of gross national 
product in 2011, with the Federal Government operating debt free by 
2009.
  We know this, of course, did not happen. Instead, the Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 have added 
over $2 trillion to budget deficits from 2002 to '11. Despite signing 
tax cuts of 2001 and '03 into law, President Bush's administration had, 
according to The Wall Street Journal, ``the worst track record for job 
creation since the government began keeping records in 1939.''
  From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the slowest pace 
for any period since 1953; and median household income declined during 
the Bush administration for the first time since 1967 when this data 
was first tracked.
  We have all lived through this past decade and have seen the damaging 
effects the Bush tax cuts have had on our Federal budget. I think it's 
safe to say that anyone who can possibly claim to belong to the 
``reality caucus'' agrees that the Bush tax cuts not only contributed 
to taking our Nation from budget surpluses to massive deficits, but 
also contributed to unprecedented levels of income inequality.
  If Congress cannot learn from past mistakes, we are destined to 
repeat them. I urge my colleagues to support my simple, factual 
amendment to show that Congress understands the true impacts of the 
Bush tax cuts and recognizes that, while tax cuts might stimulate 
additional economic activity, the tax cuts of 2001 and '03 certainly 
did not pay for themselves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is a little amusing, I guess, 
that our colleagues on the other side love to talk about the past. I'm 
not sure whether it's a desire for fantasy or misery, but talking about 
the past is interesting. But this amendment has absolutely nothing--
nothing--to do with the legislation that's being considered. We don't 
need to rehash the economic record of the last 10 years; we need to 
look forward. And that's what this bill does. It's a forward-looking 
piece of legislation.
  And looking forward, as the CBO reported on Tuesday, if tax relief is 
allowed to expire at the end of this year, which seems to be what my 
colleagues on the other side are advocating, we would then have the 
largest tax increase in the history of our country. CBO says economic 
growth would be as much as 3 percent lower than it would be if that tax 
relief were extended.
  So what we need is dynamic appropriate scoring, more information, 
more data for our colleagues to be able to have that kind of 
information so when they make decisions, they'll make, again, 
hopefully, wiser decisions.
  This amendment truly makes no improvement whatsoever to our process, 
our budget process. I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, while I find it interesting that the 
speaker from the other side believes that this is fantasy, these are 
facts. And he believes that facts should not be part of the debate, 
which is probably why we are in the trouble that we are in right now 
when the majority party believes that opinions should not be weighed 
down by the facts of the situation.
  What I'm offering in this statement is simply factual statements that 
don't detract in any way from the intended impact of this legislation, 
but it's certainly important to having a full and honest debate that we 
need to have an understanding of what happened in the past. If we do 
not have that understanding of the past, if we don't step up to the 
reality of what actually occurred as a result of missteps in public 
policy in the past, we will repeat them once again.
  What I'm hearing from the majority party is that they want to repeat 
the

[[Page H406]]

mistakes of the past, mistakes that led to uncontrollable deficits and 
also mistakes that gave huge windfalls to the wealthiest people in this 
country at the expense of middle class taxpayers.
  As a Democrat, we are very proud to stand up for middle class 
families and want to make sure that tax benefits to middle class 
taxpayers continue to go to those families that are struggling each and 
every day. On the other hand, the wealthiest among us, those with the 
highest income that have reaped the most benefit, should be paying 
their fair share. And by having tax cuts, what we will do is cut into 
those middle class families. This is a factual statement. If we do not 
recognize the reality of the facts, we are doomed to repeat those 
mistakes.
  I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, lines 14 and 15, strike ``(except the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House)''.
       Page 1, line 16, before the comma, insert ``or as a 
     standalone analysis in the case of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, yet 
important, amendment that will in fact deliver the actual transparency 
the proponents of this bill claim to be providing. My amendment will 
ensure the dynamic scoring called for in this legislation and will 
capture the broader economic effects of Federal spending as well as 
Federal tax cuts.
  The way this bill is written, to exclude appropriations bills 
highlights the political intent of the authors of this bill to only 
take into account the effective tax cuts. Both spending Federal tax 
dollars and sending them back have economic consequences; we all know 
that. And looking at just one side of the ledger is nothing more than 
political gamesmanship.
  Of course, my Republican friends have cleverly baked into the base a 
permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts which CBO already has said 
will create a drag on the economy in the long term. But I guess we 
don't want to let the facts or sound economic policy get in our way. 
That's why my amendment would include the appropriations, will fix that 
disparity, and provide us a clearer picture of the economic effects of 
all of our actions.
  As my Republican friends seem to have forgotten, the Federal 
Government has had a long history of partnering with the private 
sector, and our Nation's universities in support of basic research are 
a great illustration. These investments spur American innovation and 
provide measurable, tangible economic benefits.
  For example, the Federal Government has invested $12.8 billion in the 
Human Genome Project since it began in 1988. According to a recent 
report by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the total 
economic investment of that one project and its return has exceeded 
$780 billion. In 2010 alone, the field of genomics directly supported 
51,000 jobs in this country and another 310,000 indirect jobs. It 
generated $67 billion in economic activity last year and resulted in 
$3.7 billion coming into the Federal Treasury. The economic return on 
that single Federal investment has been significant and bears 
consideration as my Republican colleagues are trying to retrench on 
such spending.
  While not every appropriation will have a similar positive economic 
result like the Human Genome Project, the economic effect of each 
should nonetheless be considered by this Congress as it actually 
appropriates funds.
  My amendment will simply correct that oversight and provide proper 
balance to the accountability and transparency the authors of the bill 
say they wish to achieve. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment. If Congress is serious about capturing the true impact of 
all of our actions in the economy, we ought to consider all of them, 
including spending and appropriations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is what professors 
of logic--now, I know that there's not a whole lot of logic around this 
town--but professors of logic would call a nullity. Adopting this 
amendment would not require CBO to prepare an analysis of bills 
reported from the Appropriations Committee, as my good friend from 
Virginia desires.
  Section 407 of the Congressional Budget Act requires CBO to prepare a 
macroeconomic impact analysis of ``major bills or resolutions,'' which 
is the term that's defined in section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the 
bill uses cost estimates prepared by the CBO under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act. Section 402 does not apply to bills reported 
from the Appropriations Committee. So this amendment accomplishes 
absolutely nothing.
  Even if the amendment were properly drafted, it would be meaningless 
to require a 40-year macroeconomic impact analysis for a 1-year 
appropriations bill. Even the largest appropriations bill, the Defense 
appropriations bill, is only about 3 percent of the gross domestic 
product in 1 year, or much less than 1 percent of the GDP over a 10-
year period of time. So the macroeconomic impact of 1-year legislation 
oftentimes approaches zero and then can be changed with the next 
succeeding appropriations bills in years 2, 3, and 4.
  So the amendment is drafted in such a way that it has no effect 
whatsoever. Even if it were properly drafted, it's a bad idea without 
providing any new meaningful information for Congress.
  I urge defeat of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on this side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that 
the same logic my friend from Georgia uses that a simple 1-year 
appropriation may not have much measurable impact on the economy could 
also apply to tax cuts, short-term tax cuts. I would further point out 
that his opposition to a simple improvement to this bill, I think, 
sheds light on the intent of the bill. It exposes what's really going 
on here: Let's try to find a facile way to guarantee the Bush tax cuts 
are extended and the tax cutting is even easier on the wealthier who 
ought to be paying their fair share.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H407]]


       Page 2, line 14, insert ``interest rates,'' after 
     ``employment,''.
       Page 3, line 7, insert ``interest rates,'' after 
     ``employment,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for making my amendment in order and granting me the opportunity 
to address this.
  I rise today to offer what I think is a very commonsense amendment to 
the underlying bill. There's some of this debate that there's very 
little to debate about. Our national debt is nearly $15 trillion. We're 
borrowing about 30 cents on every dollar. This represents, in my 
opinion, one of the biggest threats to our economic future, and I 
believe it needs to be a top priority.
  But I also believe the first step in addressing our national debt is 
getting honest about how we calculate it and the impact of it. That 
means we have to take the right factors into account, and that includes 
the impact that higher deficits will have on our economy.
  As you know, the main problem with deficits is they push up interest 
rates. Eventually, it will happen. Higher interest rates hurt the 
economy by making it more expensive to buy a home or a car. They make 
it harder for my constituents to afford college for their children, and 
they make it more difficult for local businesses to get credit they 
need to grow.
  My amendment would simply ensure that the Congressional Budget Office 
and the Joint Committee on Taxation expressly include interest rates in 
the list of economic factors they consider in their studies. If we 
don't consider interest rates, the underlying bill would underestimate 
the impact unpaid government spending--or the un-offset tax cuts--would 
have on the economy and the deficit. Congress has to stop hiding behind 
the funny math that masks the true costs of our policies.
  I'd like to stress that my amendment is nonpartisan and 
nonideological. It's completely neutral on whether the deficit is 
increased by unpaid-for spending or un-offset tax cuts. The effects are 
the same. It simply ensures that Congress, when we take a vote, takes 
into account whether it was done in a fiscally responsible manner. We 
must let facts drive our decision-making, not ideology. If the facts 
dispute our ideology, we need to change our ideology, not the other way 
around. As a high school teacher, one thing I know for sure is you need 
to start by getting the math right.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, though I'm not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I want to commend my colleague from 
Minnesota for recognizing the wisdom of the legislation and the 
importance of looking at the dynamism of the economy and effects that 
ought to be relayed to us from the Congressional Budget Office. The 
Congressional Budget Office's macroeconomic analysis oftentimes already 
includes interest rates if the effects are relevant; however, we 
believe that this amendment helps clarify that, and we have no 
objection to the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for having 
that opportunity and for allowing this to go forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Fudge

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 14, strike ``and'' and on line 15, before the 
     period, insert ``, and income inequality''.
       Page 3, line 7, strike ``and'' and on line 8, insert ``, 
     and income inequality'' after ``tax revenues''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Fudge) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee and I thank the 
chairman for making this amendment in order.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3582, the 
Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012.
  The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act requires the Congressional Budget Office 
to provide an impact analysis, in addition to a score, when legislation 
would have a budgetary effect greater than one-quarter of 1 percent of 
GDP.
  The bill requires certain variables to be considered to determine 
economic impact. As the bill is currently written, the variables 
considered include impact on real GDP, business investment, the capital 
stock, employment, and labor supply. The bill describes these variables 
as major economic variables.
  One of the most important economic variables is missing from H.R. 
3582. My amendment would insert income equality among the variables 
used to determine economic impact. It would also require an estimate of 
the change in income equality to be included in an impact analysis.
  Income inequality is real in America. It is time we start making sure 
our laws strengthen the middle class, not weaken it.
  America is indeed the land of opportunity. It is one of the 
principles upon which our great Nation was founded. Yet in 2012, if you 
are born into a low-income family, you will most likely grow up to be 
poor. Sixty-five percent of Americans born into families with earnings 
in the bottom fifth percentile stay in the bottom two-fifths, while 62 
percent of those raised in families with earnings in the top fifth stay 
in the top two-fifths.
  America has become a wealthier Nation, but the wealth has bypassed 
the middle class. Between 1979 and 2007, overall American household 
incomes grew by 62 percent. The top 1 percent of earners saw their 
incomes increase by 275 percent over the past 30 years. That means 
their incomes nearly quadrupled. In comparison, one-fifth of households 
with the lowest incomes only saw their incomes increase by 18 percent. 
Although the pie is growing larger, middle-class Americans are watching 
their slices get smaller. Even some of my Republican colleagues have 
acknowledged the problem of economic immobility and wealth disparity in 
this Nation.
  Clearly, if impact analyses are going to be required of the CBO, the 
factors considered must include income inequality.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to draw attention to the 
fact that this appears to be essentially where our colleagues across 
the aisle will probably be taking the national debate for the next 11 
months. This is the politics of division. This is not the politics of 
unity. This is not the politics of trying to bring people together and 
seeing the country succeed. It's the politics of trying to break us 
down into different classes.
  We hear a lot of talk and will hear a lot of talk this year about 
fairness, about the 1 percent. What we won't hear, Mr. Chairman, is 
that, for example, the top 1 percent of the wage earners in this 
country make 20 percent of the income but pay 40 percent of the taxes.

                              {time}  1540

  You won't hear the other side define what is fair; they just want 
more and more and more. In fact, when you do ask them to talk about 
what they would specifically have us do--which is go back to the 
Clinton era tax rates on the top 1 percent--it would pay only 8 cents 
of every dollar of deficit in this

[[Page H408]]

Nation. It's not designed to solve any problems, Mr. Chairman, and 
neither is this amendment. It is designed to continue to try and define 
us.
  You can look at this amendment and know that it is simply offered for 
political gain. It doesn't even attempt to define income inequality in 
the amendment. It's simply designed to make a political point. 
Furthermore, you can get this information from Joint Tax if you simply 
ask for it. That tool is already available to us.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are not envious. They are more interested in 
how they are doing than whether or not their neighbors are succeeding. 
They are not envious, and we should not pass an amendment that assumes 
that they are.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Can the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say for the record that I did 
not talk about class; my colleague did. Let me as well say to you that 
if you talk to the American people, they believe in fundamental 
fairness. I don't think that the American people do not believe in 
fairness. I further don't believe that the American people live in a 
Nation where they don't believe that they can ever accomplish the 
American Dream. I don't believe that the American people believe that 
they cannot climb the ladders to success. I do not believe that we live 
in a Nation where people do not believe that they can rise above their 
circumstances.
  So let me just say to my colleague, it's not about class. It's about 
the Nation in which we live, the Nation where people come from all over 
the world wanting to see what it means to be great, what it means to 
realize the American Dream. That's the America that I'm talking about.
  This is not frivolous, this is what is right. This is what the 
American people want, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, it's the 2nd of February. We have roughly 
10 months between now and the next election. It's plenty of time for 
the folks across the aisle to let us know what they mean by fairness. 
Tell us, what does it mean? When you say that we want a fair Tax Code, 
we want people to pay their fair share, would you please just let us 
know what that means in terms of raw numbers. Give us a real proposal 
as to what that means, and give us a real proposal that actually solves 
the problem, because raising taxes on the top 1 percent simply will not 
accomplish what they say that it will. Again, it pays only 8 cents of 
every dollar worth of deficit. Let us know what fairness is, but I can 
assure you, Mr. Chairman, it is not this amendment. For that reason, I 
think we should defeat it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 18, after the period insert the following new 
     sentence: ``The analysis shall also include estimates of the 
     potential impact, if any, on HUBZones (as such term is 
     defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p))).''

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I, too, want to express my appreciation to 
the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to come in. And I 
acknowledge the ranking member of our Budget Committee for his 
excellent service, Mr. Van Hollen. I thank Dr. Price for his presence 
here today and engaging in this discussion.
  In a few days, I will be meeting with a number of my clergy, along 
with my small business community, coming from all walks of life, and 
all of us have found in our hearts and our minds to recognize that 
small business is in fact the backbone of this country. So I would ask 
that, as we look at the issue of macroeconomic analysis of this 
legislation, that we include a well-defined concept to understand what 
the impact will be on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business 
Act.
  H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a 
macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a 
large budgetary effect, and under this bill, there would be analysis 
that would come about on a number of issues that would, in fact, 
involve the gross domestic product.
  The Small Business Administration administers several programs to 
support small businesses, including Historically Underused Business 
Zone empowerment contracting, better known as the HUBZone. The HUBZone 
program is an effective program. It's a small business Federal 
contracting assistance program that crosses the land. Wherever you 
live, you have the opportunity to participate in a HUB program, whose 
primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in 
distressed communities, irrespective of your location and your 
background. It provides participating small businesses located in areas 
with low-income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with 
contracting opportunities in the form of set-aside, sole-source awards 
and price evaluation preferences.
  Mr. Chairman, this could happen to any community. One moment you 
could be thriving, and a tornado could come to you in the next moment 
and you fall in the category of a HUBZone to revitalize small 
businesses. So I ask my colleagues to support an amendment that spreads 
across America, and to make the determination that the vitality of 
small businesses is important to all of us and an assessment should be 
made using the HUBZone and the impact such legislation would have.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for offering 
this amendment. But I would suggest that the macroeconomic impact 
analysis that's required already by the legislation will analyze the 
effect of job growth and capital formation and economic growth. To add 
an additional criteria in the analysis is unnecessary, and truly 
encourages focus on the interests in particular locations as opposed to 
the general welfare.
  This is one of those areas that is rightly worked out in committee, 
the discussion of these issues in committee. So I would suggest to the 
gentlelady from Texas that this is not the appropriate opportunity to 
try to add items to the bill that actually continue to confound the 
information that would be provided to Members and focus on dividing 
things as opposed to general information.
  If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to return to the bill itself and 
to discuss for just a moment the notion that there is some type of bias 
within the piece of legislation itself. We've heard our friends on the 
other side of the aisle talk about that it's biasing positive 
information as it relates to tax cuts or tax reductions.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues who are listening to this and will 
be considering this piece of legislation in short order to read the 
legislation. The legislation says nothing about whether or not the 
dynamic scoring, the flexible scoring that ought to be available for 
Members, that kind of information is going to look at tax reductions or 
tax increases, whether it's going to look at how that affects the 
overall vitality of the economy. In fact, again, what this does is to 
provide much greater information for our colleagues here to be making 
decisions.

[[Page H409]]

  And, as so many of my friends on our side of the aisle have testified 
to during this discussion on this piece of legislation, what's needed 
around here is more information. We now have an administration that has 
been marching to the Treasury to spend more and more and more and more 
and more money, plunging us into incredible debt--$1 trillion deficits 
for each of the 4 years of this current administration--$1 trillion, 
Mr. Chairman. We've never been there before. And it's clearly having an 
incredible dragging effect on the economy.
  Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to have Members offer pieces of 
legislation and have the Congressional Budget Office be able to tell 
us, say look, if you're going to insist on continuing down this road of 
debt and doubt and despair, this is the consequence in the real 
economy; the consequence is that it will continue to have a drag on the 
economy, jobs will not be truly created? In spite of the guise from the 
administration that they talk about jobs being created or saved, jobs 
won't be created. There's a better way. There is a better way. And the 
American people know there's a better way.

                              {time}  1550

  And they know there's a better way that we can be informed. They know 
that more information for their Member of Congress will allow their 
Member of Congress to make wiser decisions. So all this bill is about, 
the Pro-Growth Budget Act, all it is about is an attempt to give you, 
to give me, to provide for every single Member of this body not biased 
information, not information that's gaming the system, information that 
allows for us to make wiser decisions.
  Wouldn't it have been wonderful, Mr. Chairman, if during some of the 
major legislation of the past couple of years, wouldn't it have been 
wonderful to have had an outside entity, hopefully objective entity, be 
able to weigh in and say, goodness gracious, if you spend $1 trillion 
of money that we don't have, this is going to be the consequence in the 
economy; this is going to be one of the outcomes of it, which is you're 
going to increase the debt in this country; you're going to decrease 
the sense that businesses out there have any certainty in the economy; 
and, therefore, they're not going to be able to create the kind of jobs 
that all of us desire and all of us want?
  That's the kind of information that we would have liked to have had. 
That's what we were saying at the time, and now it's beginning to play 
out, but it's playing out with incredible destruction in our 
communities across our great land, playing out in ways that makes it so 
that individuals are hurting and are harmed by the actions that were 
taken by the previous Congress and this administration.
  Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have that information so that 
people could weigh the options?
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and adopt the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for extending his analysis, but I 
am saddened by the fact that issues dealing with income inequality, 
where we're simply trying to acknowledge and overtake comments by 
Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney: I'm not concerned about the poor--
my point about the poor is that you're rich today and poor tomorrow. 
Catastrophic illness, devastation through a natural disaster, man-made 
disaster, a terrorist act will put many of us in conditions that we 
would have never imagined.
  What Dr. Price has failed to acknowledge, and our Republican friends, 
is that the dynamic scoring is rooted in anti-tax. It is clear that the 
bill's language and approach is designed to make it easy to enact 
deficit-increasing tax cuts.
  Keeping the Bush tax cuts are not going to improve the economy. Small 
businesses will. And ensuring that we don't have revenue will 
definitely send this Nation down a periled road of no return.
  Their own friend, former chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim 
Nussle, testified it may not be that the budget process is broken. It 
may not be, in other words, the tools are broken, but it may be that 
we're not using it. He, too, acknowledged the faultiness of dynamic 
scoring.
  What I'm doing here today is to ask for this amendment to take into 
consideration hardworking small business owners, assess whether or not 
they will be impacted negatively.
  We already know that agencies are going to have a difficult time in 
scoring this. We already know that this scoring will have no impact on 
improving the economy. But the increase in taxes that our colleagues 
want to do, with no balancing increase in revenues to be able to bring 
down the deficit, is the peril that they're sending us to.
  They have had hearings, and there have been those who've acknowledged 
that dynamic scoring does little; but it may impact negatively those 
hardworking businesses that need to have the resources that would be 
provided to them by the Small Business Administration in their time of 
need or in their time of growth.
  I ask my colleagues to add one more element of information that will 
give us guidance as to what dynamic scoring will ultimately mean. There 
is no doubt that an overwhelming number of Americans agree that we must 
do revenue, and certainly we must respond to the needs of the American 
people.
  None of us are reckless with taxes or increasing taxes, Mr. Chairman. 
We want to be balanced in what we do. I believe my amendment is a 
balanced amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #5 to H.R. 3582, 
``The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2011.'' My amendment requires the 
Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic 
analysis estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUB ZONE areas 
as defined by the Small Business Act.
  H.R. 3582, would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a 
macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a 
large budgetary effect. Under this bill the CBO would be required to 
provide an analysis of the impact on the economy of any bill that would 
have an estimated budgetary effect of greater than 0.25 percent of 
gross domestic product, GDP, in any fiscal year.
  CBO macroeconomic analysis would include the estimated effect on 
revenues and outlays of a change in GDP resulting from the legislation 
being evaluated. Those estimates would have to assume that certain tax 
policies not currently in CBO's baseline are extended. Furthermore, CBO 
would be required to publicly provide the assumptions and models 
underlying those analyses.
  In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled 
the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that is in 
essence what is going on here.
  Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of 
policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; 
in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
Reduction, also known as the super committee.
  Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic 
scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the 
cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.
  It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed 
to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts. The bill 
requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact 
of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more 
uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.
  None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim 
Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally 
have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has 
been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic 
scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate 
than the current way.''
  Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, 
generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that 
revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair, 
I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.
  Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before? I recall that the Bush 
administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to 
estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would 
increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down 
form of budgeting.
  Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but 
instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to 
look at the affect, should this measure pass, on HUB Zones, as defined 
in the Small Business Act.
  The Small Business Administration, SBA, administers several programs 
to support small

[[Page H410]]

businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone 
Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUB Zone program. The HUB 
Zone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program 
``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital 
investment in distressed communities.'' It provides participating small 
businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or 
high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of 
``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, In FY2010, the 
federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone 
certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded 
through the HUBZone program.
  Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because 
that's what we should be talking about on the House Floor today.
  The Budget Committee has held two hearings on the general topic of 
budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. 
Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, 
testified that ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It 
may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the 
fact that the tools are not even being used.''
  Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message 
is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems 
faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to 
deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important 
thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''
  And Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time--
though--In the interest of fairness to the small businesses in 
distressed communities, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, 
even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

           [From Center for American Progress, Nov. 23, 2011]

                   Five Problems With Dynamic Scoring

                            (By Sarah Ayres)

       Dynamic scoring--an attempt to measure the macroeconomic 
     effects of policy changes before they happen--continues to 
     pop up everywhere, even in negotiations by the erstwhile 
     Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as 
     the super committee. Long a favorite tool of antitax zealots, 
     dynamic scoring poses a number of problems that make it a 
     poor tool for estimating the cost of proposed legislation, 
     and the agencies tasked with making these estimates have 
     rightly rejected it for years.
       Among those who advocate this method, it is confined to 
     revenue estimates, but it could be applied to spending as 
     well. Fans of dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for 
     themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth 
     that revenues will actually increase on net. In particular, 
     the Bush administration lobbied for the use of dynamic 
     scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that 
     tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves. 
     Of course the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, instead 
     causing our national debt to explode.
       Dynamic scoring was a bad idea then and it is still a bad 
     idea today. Here are five reasons why we shouldn't use 
     dynamic scoring.
     Conventional revenue estimates already include behavioral 
         responses
       While some proponents of dynamic scoring explain it as an 
     alternative to ``static'' standard scoring estimates, the 
     conventional cost estimates prepared by the Congressional 
     Budget Office, or CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
     or JCT, are not actually static. In estimating the budgetary 
     effects of proposed legislation, CBO and JCT both 
     incorporate the microeconomic behavioral effects of policy 
     changes into their estimates. For example, when they score 
     a gas-tax increase, they account for the reduction in gas 
     purchases that would result.
       What they don't do is attempt to measure the macroeconomic 
     effects--the effects a policy will have on the overall growth 
     of the economy. As JCT explains, ``estimates always take into 
     account many likely behavioral responses by taxpayers to 
     proposed changes in tax law . . . [including] shifts in the 
     timing of transactions and income recognition, shifts between 
     business sectors and entity form, shifts in portfolio 
     holdings, shifts in consumption, and tax planning and 
     avoidance.'' The official JCT scores do assume that GDP will 
     not change from the projected CBO baseline.
     We cannot accurately measure the macroeconomic effects of tax 
         changes
       One problem with attempting to measure macroeconomic 
     feedback is that estimates depend on a lot of assumptions. 
     Broad economywide responses to tax policy changes are complex 
     and often contradictory. This reflects the wide range of 
     effects a tax change can have on different actors.
       As an example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
     or CBPP, notes that reducing marginal tax rates can lead to 
     two different behavioral responses. Increasing the after-tax 
     compensation that a worker receives for an additional hour of 
     work could incentivize the worker to take on additional work 
     because the awards are greater. At the same time, increasing 
     a worker's take-home pay for the same hours of work could 
     also incentivize the worker to work a fewer number of hours 
     for the same amount of money. Which of these two effects will 
     be larger, and by how much? The empirical record simply does 
     not offer us a clear-cut answer to that question. The same is 
     true of myriad other questions that dynamic scoring 
     implicitly or explicitly raises. There is no set of accepted 
     rules that can be applied universally to all tax-policy 
     changes occurring in a variety of economic environments.
       Even if we had clear-cut answers, there are practical 
     limits to the level of sophistication that the estimating 
     agencies could bring to dynamic scoring. Former CBO director 
     Rudolph Penner describes the problem: ``Consistent dynamic 
     scoring is logistically impossible given current technology. 
     Scoring is a hectic process. The CBO and JCT produce hundreds 
     of scores each year. Congress always wants scores 
     instantaneously, and analysts often work through the night to 
     keep them happy. Dynamic scoring would force analysts to make 
     many more judgment calls than they do today. Quality control 
     would be difficult, and that implies a high risk that 
     ideological biases will pollute the analysis.''
     Estimates require making assumptions about future policies
       Will a tax cut be paid for by spending cuts now or by 
     taking on future debt? Macroeconomic responses may differ 
     greatly depending on how policymakers choose to pay for the 
     policy. Requiring budget analysts to guess how the policy 
     will be paid for in order to score it opens up the 
     possibility that their assumptions will influence the 
     projected macroeconomic changes as much or even more than the 
     policy itself. In testimony before the House Committee on 
     Rules in 2002, CBO director Dan Crippen expressed concern 
     that his office would be stepping into a political minefield 
     by making these guesses: ``CBO could make an assumption about 
     what the next five Congresses and at least two presidents 
     will do, but doing so would subject us and the results to a 
     chorus of controversy.''
     Even if dynamic scoring worked as advertised, there is 
         evidence the effects are quite small
       In 2006 a CBPP analysis of cost estimates for President 
     Bush's proposal to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent 
     found that the dynamic estimates did not differ greatly from 
     conventional estimates. Two dynamic estimates prepared by the 
     CBO differed by less than 4 percent from the conventional 
     estimate. Even the Bush administration's own estimate found 
     that macroeconomic feedback would offset less than 10 percent 
     of the conventionally estimated cost. There is no evidence 
     that we are missing out on large macroeconomic effects using 
     conventional scoring methods.
     Lawmakers can pass policies regardless of their score
       If Congress and the president believe a policy will have 
     positive macroeconomic effects, nothing about conventional 
     scoring prevents them from passing it into law. The Bush tax 
     cuts were enacted despite their score because policymakers 
     believed they would be good for the economy. With 
     conventional scoring, everyone generally knows what's 
     included in the estimate and can make their own judgments 
     based on that knowledge. Dynamic scoring would only introduce 
     more obscurity to the process.
       For these five reasons, CBO and JCT have rightly chosen not 
     to include dynamic scoring in their official cost estimates. 
     Switching to dynamic scoring would greatly reduce 
     transparency in the revenue-estimating process. Macroeconomic 
     forecasting is an imperfect science and the underlying 
     evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. Using 
     dynamic scoring would greatly pressure estimating agencies to 
     make assumptions--assumptions that would be hard to pick out, 
     difficult to evaluate, and likely very important at their 
     extremes. CBO and JCT already incorporate behavioral 
     responses into their cost estimates, and attempts to measure 
     macroeconomic effects of the proposed policies will be 
     fraught with inaccuracies and perceived as politically 
     biased.
       We may be able to resolve some of these problems in the 
     future but for now there are many reasons why it doesn't make 
     sense to use dynamic scoring.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H411]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(c) Taxpayer Receipt.--The Director shall create and 
     maintain a permanent website with the domain name 
     TaxpayerReceipt.gov (or a similar name if that is 
     unavailable) and that includes a calculator that allows 
     taxpayers to enter their annual income and receive an 
     estimate of the amount of their projected contribution to or 
     receipt from any applicable major bill or resolution in the 
     budget year and the succeeding nine years, assuming the 
     taxpayer has a constant annual income.''.
       Page 3, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create a simple CBO-
sponsored Web site where taxpayers could learn how much they would be 
contributing to major Federal spending programs under consideration by 
Congress. Similarly, it would allow taxpayers to learn how much their 
taxes would increase or decrease under any major tax legislation being 
considered by this Congress.
  The fact is, we don't do a good enough job communicating with our 
constituents. There's too much misinformation out there, and good 
information isn't accessible enough to Americans without connections to 
Washington. Try digging through a government Web site, and you'll see 
the difficulty. My staff gets calls all the time from constituents who 
are having trouble finding good information about our budget and our 
Tax Code.
  My amendment would take a significant and necessary step towards 
increasing transparency and accountability. If Congress wants to pass a 
major new spending program, the tax and the costs to the taxpayer 
should be made transparent. If the Congress wants to pass a tax 
increase, the costs to the taxpayer should be transparent. And if 
Congress wants to pass a tax cut, taxpayers should know exactly how 
they or someone in their tax bracket would benefit.
  Transparency is the best way to hold lawmakers in Washington 
accountable, and it's the best way to rein in out-of-control deficits. 
Our constituents have a right to this information, and we shouldn't 
skimp when it comes to transparency.
  I've been working on this taxpayer receipt idea since 2010, and 15 of 
my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, have joined me in 
supporting similar legislation to this effect.
  However, at this time, I understand the gentleman from Georgia is 
opposed to this amendment, which pretty much guarantees that it will go 
down in a blazing ball of martyrdom. And while I'm a Cubs fan and my 
team hasn't won a World Series since before manned flight, I am 
realistic. So I will offer to withdraw this amendment if the gentleman 
will commit to work with me to move this idea forward in a separate 
venue.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Am I to understand that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment?
  The CHAIR. The amendment has not been withdrawn.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Not formally, if I could respond.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the gentleman yielded back?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has yielded back.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And the gentleman is able to withdraw the 
amendment after he has yielded back?
  The CHAIR. Yes, by unanimous consent.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman 
from Illinois for his amendment. But as we have had our staffs discuss, 
the amendment would truly mark a significant departure from CBO's 
historical mission of providing information to policymakers on fiscal 
and economic implications of a legislation.
  It would impose a significant new requirement on CBO to calculate the 
taxpayer benefit or the cost of major legislation, something that, 
candidly, Mr. Chairman, the CBO lacks both the expertise and experience 
to be able to provide. So though it's commendable, I don't think it has 
a thing to do with the underlying bill.
  I do believe there are some private sector solutions out there and 
look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois, given that he 
has agreed to withdraw his amendment in the future, as we move forward 
to, again, do something that I believe to be commendable, and that is 
to provide much more information for hardworking taxpayers as well.
  And given that he has agreed to withdraw the amendment, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to give the gentleman an 
opportunity to explain his point. I thank him for his willingness to 
work on this issue together. I now withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, lines 20 through 22, strike ``.25 percent of the 
     current projected gross domestic product of the United 
     States'' and insert ``$5,000,000,000''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me start by congratulating the Budget 
Committee and the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill to the 
floor. We need to have more honest budgeting, and this is a step in the 
right direction. I plan to support it. I have long supported the use of 
dynamic scoring in particular. I'm pleased to see this issue on the 
floor today.
  It's necessary to ensure that Congress has the most reliable 
information possible. Not all tax cuts are created equal when it comes 
to the ability to actually generate tax revenue, and I think that we 
ought to recognize that, and that's what dynamic scoring is all about.
  H.R. 3582 requires CBO to provide a supplemental dynamic analysis for 
a bill with a gross budgetary impact greater than a quarter percent of 
the U.S. gross domestic product in any fiscal year. Based on the 
current GDP, I believe the threshold would be somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $40 billion, meaning the dynamic scores would be 
limited to bills with a gross impact of $40 billion a year.
  Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that setting a trigger for a 
supplemental macroeconomic analysis would have yielded dynamic scores 
for somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple dozen bills introduced 
last year, let alone the number that we considered. The amendment that 
is ruled in order here would lower the threshold for requiring a 
supplemental dynamic score to any legislation that would have a 
budgetary impact greater than $5 billion in a year.
  Now, I understand that there are concerns with setting the trigger 
considerably lower than the quarter percent of GDP, including it would 
mean that CBO would have considerably more work to do. I am sensitive 
to that. But I do think that we ought to set the standard a little 
lower, or the trigger a little lower than $40 billion a year.
  CBO scores hundreds of bills a year. This is a lot more analysis that 
they would have to do, but I think it is important. But, as I 
mentioned, I'm sensitive to the concerns that have been raised that 
this would require too much work or too much additional work, which 
might require additional staffing and everything else at the CBO, so 
I'm prepared to withdraw this amendment. But I hope that, as this 
process moves forward, we can set a standard or a threshold a little 
lower than $40 billion a year. I think that that would benefit 
lawmakers as we consider the impact of this legislation.
  I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I'm happy to yield to my

[[Page H412]]

friend from Georgia the time that he might need.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I want to commend 
him for his wonderful work throughout his congressional career on the 
fiscal responsibility appropriations process, having a more transparent 
and fiscally responsible governance and a more open budgeting process 
and more responsible budgeting process.
  We both recognize the imperative of a greater dynamic analysis to the 
legislation that we have coming before us. What the appropriate 
threshold is, I think we're probably in the ballpark, but I'm happy to 
work with the gentleman as we move forward with this legislation to 
determine what that appropriate threshold is for legislation to be 
considered in a macroeconomic fashion from CBO.
  And I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and also appreciate him 
working with me in the future.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say I support this 
legislation. It's good legislation. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman as we move ahead, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 112-383.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Jobs Score Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.

       Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 653) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) an estimate of the number of jobs which would be 
     created, sustained, or lost in carrying out such bill or 
     resolution in the fiscal year in which it is to become 
     effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such 
     fiscal year, together with the basis for each such estimate, 
     and to the extent practicable, the analysis shall include 
     regional and State-level estimates of jobs that would be 
     created, sustained, or lost.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago when the 
Republican conference was meeting to discuss changes to the rules of 
the House for the 112th Congress, I offered a commonsense proposal. In 
a letter I sent to the chairman of the Rules Committee in January of 
2011, I shared my belief that our priority in this Congress must be to 
enact legislation that will lead to job growth. I further stated that, 
given our priority of job creation, the new rules of the 112th Congress 
should require disclosure of the impact on job creation of any 
legislation being considered by the full House. That was 1 year ago, 
yet here we are today rehashing a seemingly age-old debate over 
trickle-down economics.
  While we debate back and forth about whether H.R. 3582, the Pro-
Growth Budgeting Act, is just another attempt to strengthen the case 
for passing large tax cuts while minimizing the actual costs, back home 
in my State, the State of Rhode Island, more than 60,000 men and women 
are without jobs. While we debate a bill with dim prospects of ever 
passing the Senate, more than 13 million Americans remain unemployed.
  Just as many of you have seen in your own districts what I've seen 
firsthand in my district, the toll that this recession has taken on our 
families, our businesses, and our communities. My State was one of the 
first States in the Northeast to be hit by the recession, and like many 
other States, our recovery is slow; and with 10.8 percent unemployment, 
the toll continues. That's why, 1 year later, I'm still here expressing 
the same urgent need for Congress to understand, as we consider 
legislation, whether our legislative actions will result in job 
creation or job loss, and this is precisely what my amendment would do.
  My amendment would strike the underlying language in H.R. 3582 and 
replace it with the text of the Job Score Act, which I introduced 
earlier in this session. This proposal would amend the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 to require that, in addition to cost estimates, the 
Congressional Budget Office also prepare an estimate of the number of 
jobs which would be created, sustained, or lost by enactment of the 
legislation reported by the committee, including regional and State-
level estimates.
  A companion to the Job Score Act has been introduced into the Senate 
with bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats. A commonsense 
approach, there's no voodoo economics in this amendment. There's no 
controversial provisions requiring budget estimates that assume the 
extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My 
amendment would not require the inclusion of subjective and uncertain 
macroeconomic feedback in revenue estimates. This amendment goes beyond 
reviewing only major legislation and requires a jobs impact assessment 
for every bill that requires a formal CBO score.
  My amendment is simple, straightforward, and should be a proposal 
that any Member who's serious about focusing on jobs can support.
  Given these challenging economic times and their profound impact on 
the lives of men, women, and families throughout America, we need to 
ensure that the policies deliberated in Congress include an evaluation 
of the impact on job creation. This amendment puts politics, 
partisanship, and controversial economic policy aside.
  Americans deserve to know whether the actions taken in Washington are 
likely to result in job creation or job loss. My legislation will help 
provide Congress with this vitally important assessment. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from Rhode Island says that this 
is a simple proposition, and in that, he's correct. It's simply 
terrible.
  What he does with this amendment is to take away the entire 
underlying bill, and then he has the audacity to say that the bill, 
itself, does not provide any constructive information for Members.
  So I guess what the Member is saying is that an estimate of changes 
to economic output for legislation that we bring forward that is 
significant and has a huge effect on the gross domestic product, I 
guess that's not consequential. I guess that's not in order to be 
considered. I guess that means that the gentleman doesn't think that 
that affects unemployment.
  Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, employment, on page 4, line 24 of the 
legislation. I guess the gentleman thinks that that's not important, 
that the dynamic consequences of legislation that's brought forward 
here that has significant effect on GDP ought not be considered.

                              {time}  1610

  I guess the gentleman believes it is tax revenue, not tax cuts, as I 
have stated from this position all afternoon. Our friends on the other 
side seem to believe--in fact, the gentleman said--the bill would 
``assume the inclusion of tax cuts.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that assumes any 
inclusion of tax cuts or of tax reductions or tax increases. All that 
this says is, with legislation that has a significant effect on our 
gross domestic product of .25 percent, which is about $40 billion, as 
has been talked about, that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office--
our arm of the Congress that is providing us with information and is 
able to give us the most information so that we can make the wisest 
decisions--ought to look at these things in a dynamic way and look at 
economic output, look at employment, look at tax revenues. Is it going 
to be positive or negative? Is it going to affect the economy 
positively or negatively? Would that we would

[[Page H413]]

have done that over the past number of years, Mr. Chairman, maybe we 
would have made some better decisions.
  So it is important for Members to appreciate that this amendment 
strikes the entire bill and inserts in its place something that I 
believe to be, for the bill, redundant but incredibly and remarkably 
burdensome to the Congressional Budget Office. The macroeconomic 
analysis required by the base bill already requires an analysis of the 
effect of major legislation on employment and on labor supply.
  The entire point of the bill is that Congress ought to consider and 
have better information on the economic impact of major legislation 
that's being considered. The extension of this jobs analysis to every 
bill reported out of a House committee will generate an incredible 
amount of work and burden.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, we oftentimes get criticized for naming 
post offices. We're going to assign somebody at the Congressional 
Budget Office to determine the jobs impact of renaming a post office. 
That's right. You talk about a redundant and worthless activity of the 
Federal Government. This would be decreasing the efficiency of an 
already remarkably inefficient process at a time when we're 
appropriately decreasing spending at the Federal level, which--yes, Mr. 
Chairman--also includes the Congressional Budget Office. They're above 
where they were in the midportion of the last decade, but we're 
beginning to get that spending under control. This bill would 
indiscriminately add to the workload, and it would provide, really, no 
new information to Members of Congress.
  My friend from Rhode Island is correct. This is a simple amendment. 
It is simply a terrible amendment, and it would completely end the 
underlying piece of legislation.
  So I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CICILLINE. The amendment that I've offered does substitute the 
existing bill, and that's because, in fact, it is a terrible bill. And 
that's why I proposed this amendment--to substitute it--to avoid what 
the bill that is on the floor does.
  It avoids the partisanship, the controversial economic policy for 
which there is so much disagreement and which we've heard about for the 
last hour. There is no hidden agenda as to high tax cuts while trying 
to use as a baseline the Bush tax cuts. It puts aside all of the 
disagreements about which we've just heard for 1 hour, and it uses 
common sense.
  I certainly suggest to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, that, 
in fact, the single most important analysis we should be doing on every 
single bill that the CBO does an analysis of is jobs. Will this bill 
create jobs if we pass it? Will it cause the loss of jobs? That is the 
most urgent responsibility we have in Congress right now. This bill 
simply says that the analysis that should be done on every bill that 
the CBO does is to ask: Will it create jobs? Will it cause the loss of 
jobs? We would do that statewide and regionally.
  Why is that information valuable?
  Because we should be singularly focused on job creation. We should 
avoid the kind of partisanship in disputes about trickle-down 
economics, voodoo economics; about the tax policy and about using the 
Bush tax cuts as the baseline. We need a commonsense approach that 
simply says that Members of Congress should have the information and 
should know does this create jobs or does it not before making a 
decision.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman uses the 
appropriate buzzwords: trickle-down, voodoo, partisanship, and all 
that. The fact of the matter is that none of that is in this bill. What 
is in this bill is an objective, commonsense, common ground attempt to 
provide greater information to Members of Congress, and his amendment 
strikes the entire underlying piece of legislation.
  Again, at page 4, line 24, it calls on the CBO to address the issues 
of dynamism as it relates to macroeconomic factors when bills are 
coming to the floor--unemployment, unemployment, Mr. Chairman.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to adopt the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in Part B of House Report 
112-383 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Peters of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Fudge of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 244, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 24]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H414]]


     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berg
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Mack
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sires

                              {time}  1645

  Messrs. GUINTA, GARY G. MILLER of California, CRAVAACK, SHUSTER and 
McINTYRE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CLEAVER and COSTA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 24, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 24, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 237, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 25]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berg
     Canseco
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Filner
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Mack
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Schock
     Sires

                              {time}  1649

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

[[Page H415]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 25, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Fudge

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 243, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               AYES--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berg
     Canseco
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Dicks
     Filner
     Garamendi
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Mack
     Miller (NC)
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sherman
     Sires
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1652

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 26, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have ``aye.''
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 26, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 243, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

[[Page H416]]



                               NOES--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berg
     Broun (GA)
     Canseco
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Mack
     Napolitano
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sires
     Waters

                              {time}  1656

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 27, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 27, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Cicilline

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 245, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Mack
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sires

                              {time}  1701

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

[[Page H417]]

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 28, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 534, reported the bill back to the House 
with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Boswell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3582 to the 
     Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       After section 407(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 as added by section 2, insert the following new 
     subsection (c) (and redesignate succeeding subsections 
     accordingly):
       ``(c) Impacts on Medicare Benefits, Beneficiaries, the 
     Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.--The Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare for each major 
     bill or resolution reported by any committee of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate (except the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House), as a supplement to estimates 
     prepared under section 402, an impact analysis of the 
     budgetary effects of such bill or resolution on Medicare 
     benefits, beneficiaries, the Social Security and Medicare 
     Trust Funds for the ten fiscal year period beginning with the 
     first fiscal year for which an estimate was prepared under 
     section 402 and each of the next three ten fiscal-year 
     periods. The Director shall submit to such committee the 
     impact analysis, together with the basis for the analysis. As 
     a supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, all 
     such information so submitted shall be included in the report 
     accompanying such bill or resolution.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The passage of this 
amendment will add protections for America's seniors to the bill. It 
will not, I repeat, it will not prevent the passage of the underlying 
bill. If it's adopted, the amendment will be incorporated in the bill, 
and the bill will be immediately voted upon.
  My motion to recommit will protect Medicare and Social Security 
beneficiaries and repair, yes, repair the trust between seniors and 
this body.
  The Republican leadership has, for more than a year, promised that 
slash-and-burn legislation would revitalize this Nation and empower 
employers. Well, we're still waiting on millionaire job creators to 
show us the jobs.
  To date, we have seen nothing from the Republican Party that would 
encourage job growth, stabilize the American family, or help seniors 
pay for their Medicare. Instead, the policies we have seen attempt to 
take from hardworking Americans the assistance they have been promised 
and that they have paid into their entire working careers, throughout 
their lives.
  Last year we were promised legislation that would fuel job growth. We 
ended up with a budget that would pay for a tax break for the wealthy 
by dismantling Medicare. Instead of providing the benefits these 
workers had earned, the Republican budget attempted to charge seniors 
higher premium costs for fewer benefits.
  Seniors were let down when this plan had enough Republican support to 
pass the Chamber. Like me, again, seniors will be disheartened once 
more when the Republican budget on the floor next month again attempts 
to end Medicare.
  Seniors have a right to know when their benefits are being cut or 
when their Social Security trust funds are being drained. They should 
not have to fear each day what this Chamber's leadership is going to do 
to their benefits.
  American seniors have the right to know. That is why we are offering 
this amendment today, to ensure that Iowa's 450,000-plus seniors know 
when legislation could tamper with their hard-earned benefits. This 
amendment will side with our seniors by requiring an assessment of each 
bill to show how it will affect the programs our seniors rely on.
  Voting for this amendment will prove to the American seniors that you 
are on their side and that you care about the programs that made this 
country great. The greatest success of Medicare and Social Security is 
that, in a time of need, these programs brought Americans over the age 
of 60 out of poverty and ensured their access to care. These programs 
honor America's work ethic and the communities that we build together.
  This amendment would provide peace of mind by ensuring that any 
attempt to change Social Security, Medicare, and the Medicare trust 
fund will be reported to Congress and the public. Should a bill harm 
the solvency of the trust fund, lessen the benefits owed to American 
workers, or command seniors to pay more in premium costs, our seniors 
will know.
  Americans who are enrolled in Social Security and Medicare have paid 
into these programs throughout their entire careers, and they have 
helped to make this country what it is today. It is our 
responsibility--our responsibility--to work together and preserve the 
structure of Medicare.
  We must provide America's seniors with a viable safety net and 
insurance plan for their future. So I will fight to--continue to fight 
for proposals that strengthen Medicare and the benefits that American 
retirees have worked for throughout their lives.
  I hope, again, I hope you will join me, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have good news, good news for 
my friend from Iowa. This isn't necessary. It's already done. The 
Congressional Budget Office already prepares these macroanalyses any 
time we consider legislation affecting these programs.
  More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if you want to get the kind of 
detailed analysis on how policy changes affect Medicare and Social 
Security beneficiaries, that is done by the trustees, by the actuaries 
at CMS and HHS and at Social Security, SSA, not by the CBO. But the 
other part of the good news is they do that as well.
  So what is good for us is that we do not need to pass this. It's 
unnecessary. It's already done. CBO already produces this kind of 
analysis, and the trustees at Medicare and Social Security produce it 
at the very level that the gentleman from Iowa is hoping for.
  I would be more than happy, whenever legislation comes up to the 
House dealing with these issues, to provide that analysis and show it 
to my friend from Iowa.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I think we've said enough. I don't want to 
consume all the 5 minutes. There's no point in passing this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H418]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote. The Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes any electronic vote on the question of 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 237, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Mack
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sewell
     Sires

                              {time}  1727

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 29, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 179, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu

[[Page H419]]


     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Mack
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sires
     Yoder

                              {time}  1734

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 30, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 2012, I missed 
rollcall votes 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 because of 
district business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 
rollcall 21, ``no'' on rollcall 22, ``yes'' on rollcall 23, ``yes'' on 
rollcall 24, ``yes'' on rollcall 25, ``yes'' on rollcall 26, ``yes'' on 
rollcall 27, ``yes'' on rollcall 28, ``yes'' on rollcall 29, and ``no'' 
on rollcall 30.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the Record that on 
February 2, 2012, I missed the last seven rollcall votes of the day.
  Had I been present I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 
24, on the Peters Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 25, on the 
Connolly Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 26, on the Fudge 
Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 27, on the Jackson Lee 
Amendment; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 28, on the Cicilline Amendment; 
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 29, on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 3582; 
``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 30, on H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting 
Act of 2011.

                          ____________________