we did. we adjusted the c.b.o. baseline for the consideration of future revenue policies of the united states. s that very interesting graduate school debate. maybe someday, if we're flush with cash again, it would be a good policy debate. it's the wrong bill a at -- at the wrong time and shouldn't be on the house floor. let's at least put up for a vote the four specific ideas brought to this chamber by the president of the united states to regrow the middle class and put americans back to work. when we've done the real job we were sent here to do, then we can get to the graduate school seminar on congressional budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time, which is 11 minutes, and the gentleman from georgia has 20 1/2 minutes is recognized. . mr. woodall: i always enjoyed listening to my friend from new jersey because inevitably i agree with about the first six

things he says. all of the facts on which he bases his conclusions i agree on. i reach a completely different set of conclusions. my friends said one of the challenges we have in america is folks think they are working as hard as they can but they are going backwards not forwards. i get that in my district, too. i think the gentleman is absolutely right. and hope is so powerful in that country. when we lose that hope we get ourselves in a world of hurt. i think the gentleman's absolutely right. the gentleman says we can't get the economy back on track unless we get our small businesses moving again. the gentleman is absolutely right. i know it to be true. i see it my chambers of commerce, mr. speaker. bye what then? agreeing that the american people are working as hard as they can and feel like they are going backwards. agreeing that the small business community is working as hard as it can but it can't find enough consumers. what's the answer? my friend from new jersey laid out like the president did four

giant spending initiatives with borrowed money that he believed overwhelm the federal government would get involved in we could regenerate those two needy areas, and my constituents tell me exactly the opposite, mr. speaker. my constituents say, rob, if only the federal government were not involved in my life, if only the federal government were not borrowing all of this money, if on the federal government would leave us alone and let us succeed, the government is not the solution. they tell me the government is the problem. these two bills today, sadly, i again agree with my friend, do nothing to stop the government from being the problem. in fairness the budget committee is not in that business. the budget committee is in the planning of the financial future business. we leave it to the authorizing committees to shrink the size and scope of government. what these two bills do, and it troubles me, candidly, it troubles me that it's a debate,

what these two bills do is one thing and one thing only, and that's prode additional arrows in the quiver of information that we provide to the american people about the american fiscal situation. and in days like today, mr. speaker, with challenges like we have today, the american people deserve the truth. it's not always easy to say it, but we owe it to them to say it, and these two bills move us in that direction. i would be happy to yield. mr. andrews: thank you for your friendship and compliment. it's a pleasure to serve with him. i would ask him on the specifics. do you favor tax cut on small business that is hire people? mr. woodall: i absolutely believe, reclaiming my time, that our small businesses are overtaxed today. as the gentleman knows i have introduced the most co-sponsored piece of fundamental tax reform legislation in this house. another version of which has been introduced in the senate has more co-sponsors than any other fundamental reform bill in the senate. what does that bill?

calls the fair tax, h.r. 25 here in the house, it abolishes small business taxes entirely. it recognizes the economic truth that businesses don't pay taxes. consumers pay taxes. mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. woodall: i don't want to do a cut. i want to abolish those taxes all together. and what congressman price's pro-growth budgeting act would do is share with the american people because we know it's going to lose money in year one, we are cutting taxes. you reduce taxes, that's a loss in year one. what that bill would do, mr. speaker, is provide the secondary impact, the tertiary impact, share with the american people what happens in year two. it's like going to college, mr. speaker. when you go to kohl lemming, you lose money -- college, you lose money it's a drain on your bank account. if you equate that with going to college, the same as going to mcdommeds, you are going to make bad de -- mcdonalds, you

are going to make bad decisions. mr. andrews: i respectfully disagree because i think it imposes a national sales tax which i don't support. let me ask two further questions, i thank him for his time. do you think that we should put up for a vote the idea of cutting taxes for small businesses that hire people? and if so, how would you vote on it? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time and seeing the ranking member of the budget committee sitting there to my friend's right, i look forward, and speaking candidly to the gentleman, if we bring a budget to this floor that doesn't allow us a vote on cutting exactly the kind ever taxes you are talking about, not only will i be disappointed, i will be voting no. we absolutely are going to bring a budget to the floor that is going to cut those taxes, that is going to lower the burden on the american taxpayer so that we can get this economy going again. again, these are issues that we agree on across the aisle, mr. speaker, it's important that we

look at the same facts. when we look at the same facts, even as we are today, we can sometimes come to different conclusions. what these two bills do today is just make sure we are looking at the same set of facts, not just us, 7 but all the american people. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have the privilege of having our next speaker be the ranking member of the budget committee to discuss these budgetary matters that have been discussed by my friend on the other side. but, mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the house votes on h.r. 3558, mr. van hollen's proposal to make sure that members of congress do not receive a cost of living adjustment to our pay in 2013. at this time i'm pleased to yield to mr. van hollen three

minutes and more if needed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague, mr. hastings. before i say a word about the legislation which members of congress would have an opportunity to vote on if we defeat the previous question, i just want to say a word about the bills that are the subject of the rule here today. i would be very happy to yield. mr. hoyer: mr. van hollen, in fact not for political gamesmanship, want to vote to restrain and eliminate their cola, this year, they have an opportunity to do that segregated from any other issue on the previous question. i would urge members if they want to cap congressional salaries next year at current levels, they vote against the previous question when it is called. i yield back to my friend. mr. van hollen: i thank mr.

hoyer. with respect to the two bills that are subject of this rule, we are going to have more time to debate them later. i would just say to my friend from georgia, mr. woodall, that the american people would love to be able to wish away inflation. i came from a hearing in the budget committee, i'm sure the chairman of the federal reserve would like to wish away inflation. what the gentleman's proposing is that we put together a budget that, unfortunately, would get more and more misleading over time. a baseline for our budget, because it would simply wish away inflation. with respect to the other bill, as some of my colleagues, including mr. hastings have ain'ted -- pointed out, what it does is create that mirage by somehow providing tax breaks for the folks at the very top you are going to get the economy moving when in fact the most recent congressional budget office analysis shows at the end of the 10-year period if you do that, because you add more to the deficit, you

actually slow down economic growth. unfortunately the way they have got this framed you would be -- we wouldn't get that analysis. now, mr. speaker, there is one thing we can do to show families across the country that we get it. that we realize that they are struggling. that is ever member of congress should set an example by voting for legislation that says in these tough times we are not going to take for ourselves a cost of living increase. and if members vote to defeat the previous question, they'll have an opportunity to vote up or down on it. now, as mr. hoyer said yesterday, there was a piece of legislation on the floor that said we have to -- we are only going to have a -- we are only going to limit the cola for members of congress if we also punish other federal employees who have been serving this country, employees have already contributed in the last two years $60 billion to reducing the deficit.

folks like the people in the intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden, folks who are helping protect the safety of the food supply, it seems to me we should be willing to stand up ourselves and vote -- if i could have another -- mr. hastings: an additional minute. mr. van hollen: i thank the gentleman. i think we should be willing to stand up in front of the american people and just have a clean up or down vote. just have a clean up or down vote on making the statement that we members of congress understand how people are suggestle -- struggling. we are not going toe take a cost of living increase this year. we haven't taken it for the last couple years. the country is struggling. people are struggling. my friend mentioned american families talking around the kitchen table looking at the budget. let's show we understand the reality that many of them are facing. members of congress can afford to lead by example and i hope we will. and it will be an important

statement of where this congress stands. so again i thank mr. hastings for his leadership. i know at the appropriate time he's going to call for the previous question. if you want to vote to make sure that we pass legislation to not provide cost of living increases raise the members of congress, then you should vote to defeat the previous question, no on the previous question. if i could have 15 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: the last point i would make is it's very possible the senate will not take up the piece of legislation that the house passed yesterday because many of them may not want to punish federal employees. at the same time this provision we are offering, being a clean up or down vote, the senate would have to make a judgment as to whether or not to vote up or down on the question of congressional pay. i hope all our cloogs will vote to defeat the previous question so we can spend this important

message and make this statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to again find areas of agreement with my colleague. i, too, don't know what will happen with the very fine piece of legislation we sent to the senate. if experience says, it will do nothing as will all the other legislation we sent to the legislation. i share senate's frustration with fearing that fate. i also share the gentleman's belief that we need to show the american people sitting around the dinner table that we get it. but you know when congress sits around the committee table to budget, we say, ok, if rent is $1,000 this year, let's plan to play $1,100 next year, and $1,2 the year after that and do it. let's just guess the money will be there. that's not what the american families get to do. american families get to -- have to say, if rent's $1,000

this year an rent goes to $1,100 next year i got to find something to cut. i'm not getting a pay raise. i don't see that increase coming through. the economy is not getting better for me. i have to make those tough choices. mr. speaker, if we are going to be honest with folks and we have to be honest with folks, we have to tell them there is no spigot of money running on capitol hill. if there were, it would be theirs. but there is no spigot of money on capitol hill. and more importantly, and it makes me feel so good to be a freshman member in this body, more importantly while it might have been true for the last 50 years that congress just assumed every year it would spend more than it did the last, not this congress. not my colleagues and i working together, mr. speaker. what we say is we know there are not unlimited funds. we know the american people don't have more to contribute. we know that the time for tough choices was before but it was put off. it was delayed. it was ignored. and the time for tough choices then falls to us.

and we have been making them. it's not easy. it's not an area we always find agreement on, but we battle through it and we get to the end of the day. spend less in 2011 than we did in 2010 and our appropriations bills spend less in 2012 than we did in 2011. i hope that's something that the american people would be proud of. mr. speaker, with that i would say to my friend i don't have any other speakers. i am prepared to close if my friend is. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to close. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i genuinely enjoyed working with my good friend from georgia, mr. woodall. he not only brings passion to the job, but an extraordinary intellect. we serve together there on the

rules committee. i don't mean to make light of the fact of what he just got through saying about us telling the american public that we know that there are no large amounts of funds available because we, and i like the fact that he said we, put things off. but i can't ignore the fact that a large part of that putting things off came about by virtue of us being in iraq and afghanistan and spending $1 trillion with borrowed money that we did not have, and not going to the american people and asking that we sacrifice to pay for them. . $75 billion of it came from passing a medicare prescription

plan that we did not pay for and there are other measures that i can cite to democrats and republicans. my mother said to me that when she was alive, she said, well, you know if clinton is going to blame bush and bush is going to blame carter and carter is going to blame nixon, why don't you all just blame george washington and get it all over with instead of keep going back to somebody else? but with these two bills, mr. speaker, my friends want to, on the other side, drastically reduce essential government programs and then, second, to en shrine tax cuts -- and i don't like talking about the rich as it were. my ultimate plan would call for all of us that are better off to try and do everything we can to help those who are vulnerable in our society and those who are the neediest in our society.

but there are those who are in the supercategory that have not been paying the kind of taxes that many of us pay. you know, you have to put this stuff in real terms. last year i paid $41,000 in income taxes. people don't believe that. i'll bring my taxes down here and show it to them sometime. now, i don't have investments, i don't have offshore bank accounts, i don't have any stock in any bond, but the simple fact of the matter is most americans are in the same cot goir as myself. but they're going to give tax cuts to those who are wealthy who paid less than i did and less than people making $50,000 did and to my way of thinking, that's just not fair, and that's all that america is looking for is a level playing field. not one that gives the wealthiest more and the poor less. if they achieve these changes they'll succeed in creating a budget process that overwhelmingly favors tax cuts for those that are wealthier while creating near impossible

hurdles for ordinary programs to keep pace with the rate of inflation and thus stay in business while republicans cry that it's still alive. millions of other americans will still be struggling to find jobs, to pay off their student loans, to access affordable health care and decent housing and to survive in an economy that favors those who have the most rather than those who have the least. favors those who are the greediest rather than those who are the neediest. dr. frankenstein was eventually repulsed by the monster he created. these technical changes to the budget process are equally repulsive for they add up to a system of government spending that is helpful to those who need it the least and harmful to those who need it the most. tying our hands in convoluted knots in order to advance a conservative ideology is not the way to run an honest, objective,

transparent and open budget process. i urge my colleagues to vote no against this rule. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the previous question -- amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say, i'm a few years younger than my friend from florida. i didn't get the benefit of the let's pretend radio program that he had in his day. but i feel like i've had a little dose of let's pretend here on the floor today. i feel a kinship with my friend and what that must have been like to hear that because what we have heard here on the floor is, let's pretend that there's

not a serious crisis that we have to get our arms around. let's pretend that we do have the money to spend more and more and more each and every year. let's pretend that if we give the american taxpayer more information with which to make informed decisions, that will somehow do us harm. mr. speaker, these bills are about common sense. these bills are about ending the washington double speak that has been a frustration to folks back home for far, far too long. i'm joined here on the floor with sheriff rich nugent from florida, one of my freshman colleagues here in the body, mr. speaker. as as a sheriff he told us in the rules committee yesterday, he some pretty serious responsibles -- responsibilities. there are no easy parts of being sheriff. it is all got-to-happen kind of business.

but when he made his budget year after year after year, even though lives were literally hanging in the balance, he didn't get to assume he could spend more next year than he did the year before. he had to justify each and every dollar. and that's important. because budget process is convoluted. we're doing our best to make it simpler. but folks might not understand exactly what's at the heart of these issues and when it comes to this baseline reform act, mr. speaker, what it's saying is, if the law of the land has a program, let's say we're buying flags to fly over the united states capitol, if that program is slated to last for 10 easy, the c.b.o. will fund it for 10 years. they'll estimate it for 10 years. if it's estimated to last for five years, c.b.o. will estimate it for five years and if it's supposed to last for one year, they'll do it for one year. what they won't do is say that just because the entire congress is spending $50 mm -- million,

that next year the congress will be able to spend $60 million. because of inflation. what it says is, don't guess. if the congress wants to speak to how much money should be spent, the congress should speak. and in fact we do. day in and day out, mandatory spending, appropriation spending. but the c.b.o. should not be asked to guess. we heard the challenge in the budget committee yesterday when the c.b.o. director came and testified. we talked so much about the bush-obama tax cuts expiring. if we kept them all, if we kept all of the tax cuts, in fact, if we went back to the tax cuts that expired in 2011 and we brought those back, too, reduce the american taxpayers' burden to the tune of every single tax cut that's on the books, america's tax burden would still be higher over the next decade than it has been historically

over the last 50 years. if we kept them all. what if you let them go away, mr. speaker? if you let all those tax cuts go away, america's tax burden would rise to the highest level in 50 years. the single highest level in 50 years. how much debt would we pay back if we raised the american tax burden that high, mr. speaker? not one penny. not one penny. how much of our deficit would we get rid of, would we be able to have one year of a balanced budget? no. we could raise the american tax burden, mr. speaker, to the highest level in the last 50 years. and we still wouldn't balance this budget. mr. speaker, the challenge is not revenue. the challenge is spending. and these two bills make sure that both on the revenue side and the spending side the american taxpayer has access to

absolutely every bit of information they need to make good decisions. with that, mr. speaker, i again ask my colleagues for their strong support of this rule, their strong support for the two underlying pieces of legislation and with that i would like to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and moves that the previous question be ordered on the resolution. shall the previous question be now put. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five minute votes on adoption of the resolution if ordered and

the motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3630. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238, the nays are 177. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238 and the nays are 179. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of -- to instruct on h.r. 3630 on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: megs to instruct conferees -- motion to instruct conferees on motion h.r. 3630 offered by mr. michaud of maine. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 236. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3764 the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i ask unanimous consent -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman from which is wigs. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 3582. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

pursuant to house resolution 534 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3582. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, to preside over the committee of the whole. the clerk: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3582 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the congressional budget act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 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: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i simply

want to say thank you to the people who have made budget process -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order again. the clerk: the committee will be in order. -- the chair: the committee will be in order. members will please kindly take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, it goes without saying but unfortunately bears repeating, our budget process is broken. last year the senate didn't pass a budget. the year that -- before that the senate didn't pass a 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 sigh mr. dreier -- say mr. dreier, chairman of the rules committee, 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. 10 members of the budget committee reporting together an effort to fix this broken federal budget process to bring more accountability, more transparency, and more -- better results so that we can fix this problem. this bill is offered by dr. price from georgia which simply says, while we consider large fiscal pieces of legislation, let's let the c.b.o. add an analysis so we know what it does to the economy. that's not a lot to ask. a lot's happening. we want to make sure that as we judge large fiscal legislation,

that we have the kind of analysis we need to better judge what it does for our economy. with that, mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time to the author of this bill, mr. price. the chair: the gentleman will be recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. at this point i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by saying to the chairman of the budget committee and all the members of the budget committee that we appreciated the dialogue that we have had on the budget reform bills. there is one bill that i understand will -- we'll take up next week where the chairman of the committee and myself were able to find some bipartisan consensus. that's the expedited procedure of legislative line-item veto bill where you got some democrats and republicans in favor of it and some democrats and republicans against it. but with respect to the two

bills that are before us today, mr. chairman, i'm afraid they fall far short. in fact, i think that 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 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 will do one thing to create and help create jobs in this country. now, with respect to this particular piece of legislation that we are dealing with now, which actually is a step toward requiring some kind of dynamic scoring by c.b.o. 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 pieces of legislation does is say, yeah, we are 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 are going to consider whether or not tax policy affects the economy, but when it comes to major investmentser, for example, infrastructure, transportation investments that we all know have historically helped this country grow whether it was the highway system, whether it was been investments in other major infrastructure around this country, they have all had economic growth benefits, but those were specifically excluded to the extent they are involved in the appropriations process. so we are looking at only one half of the equation revenues, not investments, at least to the extent 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 2001-2003 tax cuts. both on middle income americans, but also the tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top, the top 2%. 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 are going to get an answer that says, well, we are 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. if you look at their auntil sees, they -- analyses, and they did one in september of 2010, you'll find 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. same conclusion. at the end of the 10-year period you would actually have a slowdown in economic growth. it's a little perplexing to find out why we are drafting something that would not require a study of one of the first consequential decisions this congress might make.

and so for those reasons, mr. speaker, one that we are not even counting the investment side of the equation, with respect to the consequences for economic growth, but number two, the fact that this isn't even going to trigger an analysis of one of the biggest revenue decision this is body will make, we have to oppose the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: let me first begin by just thanking the chairman of the budget committee, congressman ryan, who has put in inconsidered as read -- incredible amount of work 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, jeff 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. there is no question, mr. chairman, that our number one priority in this body must be enacting policies that help our economy create jobs. it is clear the president's policies have failed and commaking the economy worse. because the president can't run on his record he has denigrated into the process of division and envy politics in this country. . terribly distressing. house republicans, as you well know, we have a plan. we've got a jobs plan. it's a plan to put the american people back to work and so we're delighted to be able to have an opportunity today to talk about

one part of that plan. the economy's growing way too slowly as you well know. not nearly enough jobs being created. which is one of the reasons, 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 c.b.o. uses a score or determines the cost of legislative proposals by a static method that doesn't take into account macroeconomic factors like increasing revenue and reducing the deficit and 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 affects on economic growth and we ought to be looking at that consequence. and while current law requires the congressional budget office to provide congress with information on the fiscal impact of all legislation that's reported from the committee, there is no requirement, no

requirement for analysis of the economic impact. this bill recommend disthat 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 .25% of the gross domestic product. that equals, mr. chairman, about $39 billion in 2012. this does not change the traditional c.b.o. static scoring method at all. this analysis will be in addition to current law. so it gives members of congress more information surrounding which they are able to then make appropriate decisions. it's important to remember, mr. chairman, that current policy is what has been utilized as a base line for the administration -- baseline for the administration, for simpson-bowles commission, for all of those used current policies. so this notion that we ought not be using current policy as a baseline is simply folly.

in 2011 only six bills, only six bills met the .25% g.d.b. threshold which means that the c.b.o. ought not be overworked by having this opportunity to provide greater information to members of congress. everybody knows that c.b.o. scores in the past have been significantly out of accuracy. the medicare modernization act of 2003 is but one example. c.b.o. estimates that that would cost about $206 billion. in fact it was $124 billion. mr. chairman, that's a huge, huge difference. past c.b.o. macroeconomic work has shown that federal deficits and tax rates do in fact impact the economy. c.b.o. themselves have said, quote, the reduction in federal borrowing that would result from smaller deficits would induce grealter national saving and investment and -- greater national saving and investment and thereby increase output and inme, unquote.

so, mr. chairman, more information from c.b.o. 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. so i will urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset of his remarks, mr. price referenced the economy and the president's plan. i think it's important to remember that when the president came before this body for the first state of the union address, the economy was in absolute freefall. mr. van hollen: in fact, we now know it was even worse than people realized at the time. we were losing g.d.p. at a rate of more than 7%. 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 report, they have told congress that because of the recovery bill we saved or created up to three 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%. you know, in your -- when you're headed down fast you got to stop the slide, pick yourself up and begin the 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 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 would defer to my -- the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, and allocate two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you so much. i just want to state at the outset that what a pleasure it is to work with the chairman, the ranking member, members of the budget committee, who i believe are sincerely committed to trying to help deal with the deficit situation. but what i find rather baffling, i 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 more dynamic economy in human capital, in our infrastructure. they're -- their only interest, almost to the point of a fetish, to consider -- to favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of growing our economy. and this pro-growth budgeting act, h.r. 3582, is yet another example of that, mr. chairman. this legislation would allow republicans to really understate the effective tax cuts on the deficit. hiding their impact, masking their real costs 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 -- the persistence. they want to carve the supply

side economics and trickledown no matter how long it's failed into our body of politics 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. like 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, instead of trying to -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. moore: i hear from all walks of life that a transportation budget, re-authorizing the transportation budget, would be

such a boom to our economy. trying -- 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 allowing for a dynamic affect of tax cuts, not the affect of investments that are going to bring life for us all, the republicans are showing their true colors again and with that i would yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him and our budget committee chairman for their kind words and their great leadership for fiscal responsibilities 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 re-election on his failed policies, he has unfortunately resorted to the politics of division and envy. mr. chairman, the american people aren'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 two 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, 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 c.b.o. that estimated that another million of our countrymen might 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i hope if our republican colleagues are going to keep asking c.b.o. for these reports that they'll read those reports because if you read the c.b.o.'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 three million jobs. that's what c.b.o. says. it also says in the year 2011 it helped reduce unemployment by over 1.4%. 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 freefall. yes, it's kind of like when you're trying to run up an

escalator that's going up 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 and 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 the recovery bill. it stopped the freefall, stabilized the economy. with he need to take more steps and i wish our 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 three million jobs. in fact, over three million jobs in the economy. are we where we want to be? no. but let's not go back to the same policies that got this -- us into this mess to begin with. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, who's been very foe to -- focused on budget issues for a long time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding and

just 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 trickledown policies in our already flawed budget process. 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's 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 and the results were soaring deficits and we now find ourselves in crippling debt,

unable to pay for needed investments in our crumbling infrastructure. unable to pay for the needed education and retraining required to maintain american competitiveness in the ever-changing global economy. so i vote no on this tried and failed approach. and i ask colleagues to return to the pay-go rules, the pay-as-you-go rules that helped lead us to the balanced budgets and the economic prosperity of the 1990's. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: it's curious to hear my colleague talk about his concern of the debt when the last four years, the four years of this administration, we have the first four 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 g.d.p., as you well know, mr. chairman, the members, our colleagues know, the congressional budget office periodically updates the information that they -- that provide as it relates to the estimates about what has occurred in the economy from policy here in washington. the most recent update shows that an 8% increase in the real g.d.p. growth from the stimulus bill, now that's down from 1.7% growth, and that is down from their estimate before. and a .4% reduction in unemployment rate which is down from a .8% reduction in unemployment rate. so, mr. chairman, if we wait another quarter or two we are going to see that in fact the real information is out and that is that the spluss bill had no effect or detrimental effect on the economy. with that i'm pleased to wreeled two minutes to my

colleague from -- yield two minutes to my colleague from mr. broun. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. broun: mr. speaker, 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 budget 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 democratic 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 the chilling effects that 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 stay within the boundaries of our budget. well, i forgot, we still don't have a budget thanks to the destruction of the democratic leader, harry reid. that's why i introduced by budget or bust act just today. it would literally force the house and 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. that rightful owner that our founding fathers 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 to hardworking taxpayers -- the hardworking taxpayers deserve. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 that are 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 and 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 c.b.o. 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 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 truth, the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with mr. mcclintock that more information is helpful. we just don't want to ask for the information the 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 to the appropriations process. they have removed that analysis from this bill. in addition to the fact it's very curious that when it comes to tax policy they have written this in a way that when c.b.o. 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 have written this legislation. when in fact we know at least

from earlier c.b.o. reports that in the out years, 10 years out, it will 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. that's just not -- let's just not ask c.b.o. for information that is designed to only exfract -- extract one side of the story. unfortunately that's what the bill does in its current form. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a bit amused, mr. chairman, by the tact that the other side is taking on this. 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. 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 two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. flores: thank you, mr. price. mr. chairman, although the obama administration may tout science 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 trillion dollar 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 c.b.o. to provide lawmakers with macroeconomic impact analysis for all major legislation reported by house or senate committee. the economic analysis would describe the potential economic impact of all major bills on 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. 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 had -- 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 we can promote pro-growth policies that will help get our economy back on track, reduce the deficit, and protect hardworking taxpayers. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. again i go back to the fact that you're asking c.b.o. to only give one side of the story. i would just refer mr. price,

my friend, colleague, to page three of the bill, lines 12 through 16, where you say the c.b.o. goal shall to the extent practicable prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any committee of the house of representatives or senate, in paren that sees, 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 equipment, when we invest in our roads and bridges and 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 just want to now yield three minutes to my colleague on the budget committee, mr. doggett of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. 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 prothe growth budget. big difference. but a pro-growth budgeting act. 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 view due economics legislation. -- voodoo economics legislation. it attempts to enshrine republican doing ma that even elementary arithmetic student would have question about.

it's based on the theology that the best way to get more is to do less. that if you have a 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 al can misof old who -- 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. putting all of the debate aside, 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, it costs $1 trillion, $1 trillion toward the budget deficits that we have and if we extend the bush tax cuts for those at the very top, again, it will cost another $1 trillion. that's trillion with a t in both cases. it is a big impact in digging us into the hole that we are in that we are 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% a year under president clinton. and down to about 2% 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, experience 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 -- do you have another minute? . >> i yield the gentleman another minute. mr. doggett: we heard objective testimony that if we extend all 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 trickledown. 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 american families across this country, instead of playing games with the numbers and trying to show that the impossible is reality. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank you, mr. chairman. boy, you know, it's kind of like alice in wonderland, actually. if the gentleman truly wants to have the information that he is demanding, they ought to be supporting the bill. because what he's talking about is dine mitchell 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. and, for example, the tax

reductions of -- 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 end all, when it passed what happened, mr. chairman? employment plummets. unemployment skyrockets. so the gentleman can go back to the 1990's, yes, but what we're living in right now is 2012. and the policies aren't working. and 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. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: i rise in support of the pro-growth budgeting act. just yesterday in the budget committee, i had the opportunity to question the c.b.o. 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 c.b.o. 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 nefit 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 rebelieve, unless they're offsetting changes, the economy will be worse off. from the c.b.o. legislation like the pro-growth budgeting act will require the c.b.o. 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

trillion-dollar 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 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, 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

extends the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, all or some of them. 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. and what they point out is that at the end of the 10-year period you're losing g.d.p. growth. again, why? because if you have big tax cuts that are financed by borrowing as the rules -- 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. and so those tax cuts begin to slow down the economy at the end of the 10-year period and they're not an efficient use, especially the tax breaks for the folks at the top, the top 2%, it's not an efficient use of getting the economy moving. look, we saw in the 1990's under president clinton, we had a higher top margin of -- marginal tax rate. 20 million jobs were created. booming economic times. so, i'm glad the previous gentleman raised the issue of the long term. we're all a political perplexed about why this bill is written in a way -- we're all a little perplexed about why this bill is written in a way that a major change in law that could be made 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. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's important to point out the c.b.o. director indeed did say the long-term effects of the stimulus are 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 can congress. in a responsible way. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, builds black. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you and thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. chairman, i rise in support of the pro-growth budgeting act of 2011. this would require the c.b.o. to provide lawmakers with macroeconomic impact analysis for major legislation defined by budgetary impact greater than . 25% of g.d.p.

pretty simple. current law already requires c.b.o. to provide congress with the fiscal impact. and this bill would require the c.b.o. 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 tool kit. 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 it should be our priority. the more information available to policymakers the better decisions. look, 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. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i just have to emphasize again, i already read from the portion of the bill that says, we want economic analysis of major pieces of legislation accept -- except from the committee on appropriations and again transportation, infrastructure investments, over the history of our country, are provided important economic growth. the president asked this congress to take up his infrastructure investment jobs bill last september. the 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. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. 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: thank you, mr. chairman. i would respond to the gentleman as he well knows that current law, current law, section 402 of the congressional budget act of 74 requires that c.b.o. produce cost estimates of legislation reporting on every committee except, except the committee on appropriations. to believe that a one-year appropriations bill could have a c.b.o. assessment of the economic impact 40 years out, which is what is their appropriate window and usual window, it's just nonsensical. so current law, current law simply states that c.b.o. looks

at committee action and not appropriations and for good reason. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my colleague from georgia, mr. woodall. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: i thank you, 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 and 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. and let me just tell you what it says, mr. chairman, if you hadn't seen it. the analysis prepared shall describe the potential economic

impact of the applicable major bill or resolution on major economic variables including real g.d.p., business investment, capital stock, employment and labor supply. 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. speaker, 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 . and 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, the gentleman's mistaken. we do get analyses now with respect to the economic impact. there's a provision in the house rules that i referenced earlier that asks for that and in fact joint tax has done exactly that. the figures i was reading with respect to the impact -- negative impact on growth in the outyears was from a dynamic analysis of the joint tax committee has done pursuant to house rules. what this does, again, is -- i will not on my time. i'd be happy to yield -- mr. woodall: i'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman.

mr. van hollen: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i refer the gentleman to the bill, the piece of the document i 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 two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. 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 total going to obscure the budgeting process, make it more complex, more expensive, and

actually more confusing for the american public. i agree with my good -- 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 that frankly we've seen that the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, which is established as the impartial score keeper, puts out information like we discussed here today in the budget committee on how much impact the recovery act had on employment, on g.d.p. enhancement, 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. well, get ready, folks. we have what my good friend from georgia wants to deal with freezing baseline budgets where otherwise not 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 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's likely to happen. that would be swept away, an artificial figure established, which will -- by budgeting. there is a reason why the

number of states that have moved, almost all of whom used to have biennial budgeting are moved to annual budgets because they're more accurate, less complex, less expensive and it doesn't pose so much burden on both the legislative branch and the administration to try to fiddle around with things that we know are inaccurate. then we're going to have the risk adjustment, which will take something that is already accurately portrayed in terms of the budget, and they're going to be adding and subtracting values that are only going to confuse. the four of them are an example where my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to get to work and deal things we might agree on, like reforming agriculture, and 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. thank you and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: what we're talking at is more information, more information for our colleagues. for -- mr. price: i can't figure out why our democratic friends on the other side of the aisle want to keep our colleagues in the dark here so we can continue to make the kind of decisions we have been making. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to any friend from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: i rise in support of the act brought by my friend and colleague, congressman tom price this good piece of legislation is a common sense solution to the growing debt and deficit causing concern among many arizonas. while i may be new to d.c. and the halls of congress, i'm not new to the impacts of congress' inability to live within their

means. as a dentist and small business owner for over 25 years, i faced the uncertainty of additional tax and regulatory burdens because federal government has 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 effect that a piece of legislation would have on the economy. this, my friend, should be a no brainer. it is a necessary step toward taking and reining in fiscal sanity into this nation. making wise decisions starts by being properly informed on the facts and the information. again, i support this legislation and encourage you to pass this good bill today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: can i inquire how much time is left on each side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from georgia has four

and one quarter minutes. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. pll welch: there's a reason this is such a crisis, there are two bill, dynamic scoring that has as its premise that any tax cut increases the deficit and, that somehow that's going to solve the problem. with the debt that is a serious problem in this country. it's time for congress to acknowledge the obvious, and that is the problem is the problem. these roundaround 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, you are a household a local government, you're someone who is responsible, when you have a debt problem, you're going to look at everything, put it all on the table, there are 100 members of the house of representatives that signed a letter, who 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, somehow we'll still meet the needs. you know, we had a war in iraq and afghanistan, two wars that weren't paid for. both on the credit card. we had medicare scription drug program, on the credit card. whether you supported those as a democrat or republican, and we had people on both sides of the aisle that did, you've got

to pay for it. we didn't pay for it. we're paying now the consequences of it. the so-called reforms about the process, it's always legitimate to figure out about the process, how can we do it better, how can we get better information, but not when it means we avoid the problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm perplexed by the arguments being used in opposition on the other side. my friend from vermont says that this assumes there's a certain premise about tax cuts. the bill doesn't even say -- doesn't use the language tax cuts. it uses tax revenue. tax reduction, 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. they've got a debt challenge they get all the information

that they can. mr. chairman, that's what we're asking here, is to provide as much information as possible for members of congress to make wiser decisions. i'm so pleased to yield my colleague from south carolina, a member of the committee, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mulvaney: as we sit in our offices and watch these debates on television, sometimes we feel compelled to run over and participate in the debate, that's what drove me over here today. it's hard to know where to start. there's a long list of things to discuss here today, we could start with the gentleman from maryland who offered again today hearks did in the budget committee, that the recovery act jeb rated as much as six million jobs. if you listen clearly what he says and read the documents he cites, up to six million jobs saved or created. the truth of the matter is, if -- we could make just as easily the argument that the number is

closer to 1.2 million jobs saved or created, that's assuming that a job saved is a job created. i would suggest to my friends across the aisle if they believed the recovery act is so wonderful, bring it up again. bring us one twice the size. look the american people in the yie and say $00 billion wasn't enough. we want $1.6 trillion of another stimulus bill. 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 pay-go rule, something i'm a little bit familiar with my predecessor was a big supporter of the pay-go rules. the pay-go rules were in place when the government ran up the largest deficits in history. the rule was never designed to cut spend, never designed to lower the deficit, it never accomplished what folks so fondly in hindsight believed it

did in the late 1990's. really what drove the surpluses in the late 1990's was the reduction in the size of the federal government. but again, not what we're here to talk about. what the gentleman from texas was talking about was spot on. to come to the well and say the bush tax cuts that got us in the hole that we're in. i don't know why we call them the bush tax cuts. they were extended by a democrat president and democrat senate and democrat house at the enof 2010. i always referred to them as the bush-obama tax cuts, but that doesn't catch on. it's said that when those were in place, revenue went down. that's what the c.b.o. would tell you would happen. under the static models in place now, when we supposedly cut taxes the c.b.o. said if you lower tax rates, revenues will go down. unequivocally, not what happened with the bush tax cuts. 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 in. the rest of the world doesn't understand how we count. c.b.o. scoring is a big part of the problem. that's why i respectfully suggest we need to pass this bill and send it to the senate. i thank you for your time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i inquire of mr. price, do you have any more speakers? mr. prike: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: 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 c.b.o. in a way that will only give us partial information. i already mentioned that we left out the impact, the economic impact for what we think should be included.

we think the appropriations investments should be included in any economic analysis. clearly, the important investments we make in science and research and innovation, in 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 colleague wills 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'll 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 tax committee. macroeconomic dynamic analysis, it does say at the end of that peer, it would 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 new york terms of the impact of the recovery bill, was in a document dated november, 2011, an 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 the -- dr. elmendorf has testified numerous times before the budget committee an indicated had it not been for the passage of the recovery bill, had it not been for abs 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's 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 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. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i appreciate the gentleman's comments but it's clear, the revise red ports on the stimulus comes up and state it's costing more, costing the economy more. and that the jobs that are created, quote, created, decrease. every time there's a new estimate. and so we're approaching zero jobs saved or created in -- or created. in a short time, i suspect we'll be at jobs lost from the stimulus.

in fact, the c.b.o. director yesterday in committee said, quote, 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, unquote. so i'm -- it's interesting to see our colleagues on the other side continue to grab on to what they think is the lifeline of a stimulus bill that with time looks worse and worse. maybe, mr. chairman, if we had only had this piece of legislation at the time of the attempt at adoption -- or the adoption of the stimulus bill, so-called stimulus bill, maybe somebody would have thought differently. maybe they would have recognized that in fact it wasn't going to have the -- that it was going to have the real effect that it has, to decrease the vitality of the economy. . this bill is simple, do you want more information or 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 and i yield back. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. purn to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill rs, it shall be in order to consider orange bill for purpose of amendment 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. 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 opponent, shall be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in part b house report 112-383. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in part b of house report 112-383 offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 534, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i rise today in support of the peters amendment to h.r. 3582. 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 they can more easily advance their aagenda avel of tax cuts for the rich and slashing programs that american families that they rely on each every day. dynamic supporters back this legislation in large part because it can mask the cost of tax cuts while ignoring the multiplier effects that education, infrastructure and public health. in order to evaluate, we need to

look at the claims made by those who supported the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and see how they stack 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 put forward an amendment that will simply add 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 one, on january 8, 2003, white house press secretary said that president bush believed that the tax cut package enacted in 2001 and expanded in 2003 would, quote, create additional revenues for the federal government and pay for itself. two, before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted, the congressional budget office

projected rising surpluses from 2.7% to 5.3 of gross national product with federal government operating debt-free by 2009. we know this, of course, did not happen. and instead the congressional budget office estimates that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have added over $2 trillion to budget deficits from 2002 to 2011. despite signing these tax cuts, president bush's administration had, according to the "wall street journal," quote, 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 lived through this past decade and seen the damaging effects the bush tax cuts have had on our federal budget. 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 destinned to repeat them. i urge congress to pass my amendment to show that congress understands the true impact of the bush tax cuts and recognize that while tax cuts might stimulate delirble economic activity the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 certainly did not pay for themselves. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. price: 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 c.b.o. reported on tuesday is that 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. c.b.o. says economic growth will be 3% lower than it would than if that tax relief were extended. 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 and i urge its defeat. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. peters: it is interesting that the speaker from the other side believes that this is fantasy. this is 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 in and the majority party believes that opinionsd t ftu statements that don't detract in any way from this 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 and public policy in the past, we will repete them once again. what i'm hearing from the majority party, they want to repeat the mistakes of the past, mistakes that led to uncontrollable deficits and mistakes that gave huge winfalls to the wealthiest people in this country at the expense of middle-class taxpayers. we are proud to stand up for middle-class families and continue benefits to those who are struggling. those with the highest incomes that have reaped the most benefit should be paying their fair share and having tax cuts, we will cut into the middle-class families. this is a factual statement. if we do not recognize the reality of the facts, we are

doomed to repeat the mistakes and i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. peters: mr. chairman, yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. peters: yes the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in part b of house report 212-383. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number twop -- two offered by mr. connellly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 534, amendment

offered by mr. connelly each will control five minutes. mr. connolly: this is a simple yet important amendment that will deliver the 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 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 take into account the affected tax cuts. spending federal tax dollars and sending them back have economic consequences and looking at one side of the ledger is political gamemansship. and they have put in a permanent extension of the bush tax cuts

which c.b.o. would create a drag on the economy in the long-term but we don't want economic sound policy to get in the way. my amendment to include the appropriations and will fix that disparity and provide a clearer picture of the economic effects of all of our actions. if my republican friends seem to have forgotten, the federal government has had a history of partnering with the private sector and these investments spur american innovation and provide measurable, tangible economic benefits. for example, the federal government's invested $12.8 billion in the human genome project since it began in 1988. according to a recent report, the total economic investment of that one project and its return has exceeded $780 billion. in 2010 alone, the field of

genomics supported 51,000 jobs and another 310 thousand and generated $67 billion in economic activity last year and $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. not everything will have a specific result, the economic effect of each should be considered by this congress as it actually properties funds. my amendment will correct that oversight and provide proper balance to the accountability and transparency the authors say they wish to achieve. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. if congress is serious about capturing the true impact, we ought to consider all of them, including spending and appropriations. i reserve the balance.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek time? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: this amendment is what professors of logic would call a nullity. adopting this amendment would require c.b.o. to prepare an analysis on bills. section 407 of the congressional budget act requires c.b.o. to prepare a macroeconomic impact analysis of major bills and resolution, which is the term defined in section 2 of the bill. section 2 of the bill uses cost estimates prepared by the c.b.o. 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 one-year appropriations bill. even the largest appropriations bill, the defense appropriations bill is only about 3% of the gross domestic product in one year or much less than 1% of the g.d.p. over a 10-year period of time. so the macroeconomic impact of one-year legislation oftentimes approaches zero and can be changed with the next succeeding bill in years two, three and four. the amendment as drafted in such a way that has no effect whatsoever, even if it were properly drafted, it is a bad idea without providing any new meaningful information. i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. .

mr. connolly: i yield myself such time as i may consume. ill point out that what the gentleman mentions could apply to tax cuts and his opposition to a simple improvement to this bill i think gives the lie to the intent of the bill. it exposes what's really going on here. let's try to find a way to guarantee the bush tax cuts are extended and the tax cuts is even easier on the wealthier who ought to be paying their fair share. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the yes is -- question is on the amendment offereded by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. connolly: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote being requested, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in part b of house report 112-383 for what purpose does the gentleman from mp seek recognition? mr. walz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three offered by mr. walz of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 534, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for making my amendment in order, granting me the opportunity to address this. i rise today to offer what i think is a very common sense amendment to the underlying bill. there's some of this debate,

there's very little to debate about. our national debt is $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. 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 mean we was to take the right factors into account and that includes the impact that higher deficits will have on our economy. as you know, one of the problems, 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 car, they make it harder for my constituents to save for the future. this would make sure that the joint committee on taxation include interest rate in the list of economic factors we consider in their studies. if we don't consider interest

rate the bill would underestimate the impact that spending would have on the economy and the deficit. congress has to stop hiding behind the funny math and show the true results. i'd like to stress that this amendment is nonpartisan. the effects are the same whether it's tax cuts or spending. it says that congress when it takes a vote take into account whether it was fiscally responsible. we must let facts drive our decision making. if the facts dispute our ideology, we need to change our ideology. as a high school stecher -- teacher, one thing i know for sure is you need to get the math right. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i want to commend my friend from minnesota for

recognizing the wisdom of the legislation and looking at the dynamism of the economy and thesques that ought to be relayed to us from the congressional budget office. the congressional budget office's macroeconomic analysis often already includes interest rates if the effects are vell rant. -- 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 oif many time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: mr. chairman, i thank the opportunity for having the opportunity an allowing this to go forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the jlt from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part b of house report 112-383.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an -- ms. fudge: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 112-383 offered by ms. fudge of ohio. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. fudge: i thank the rules committee and thank the chairman for making this in order. i rise to offer an amendment to hrm r. 358 to, the pro growth budgeting act of 2011. it 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 one percent of g.d.p. the bill requires certain variables to be considered. they include impact on real

g.d.p., business investment, 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's 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. 65% of americans born into families with earnings in the bottom fifth per cren tile stay

in the bot. two-fifths while 62% 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 by passed the middle class. between 1979 and 2007, overall, american households' incomes grew by 62% they have top 1% saw their income increase by 275%. over the past 30 years. that means their incomes nearly quadrupled. in comparison, 1/5 of households with the lowest incomes only saw their incomes increase by 18%. though 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 analysis

will be required of the c.b.o., the factors considered must include income inequality. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek reck anything? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for five minutes. >> i rise today to draw attention to the fact that this appears to be essentially where our colleagues across the aisle will be taking the national debate for the next 11 months. s the politics of division. this is not the politics of unity or the politics of trying to bring people together and hope -- in hopes of seing the country succeed. it's the politics of trying to break us down into different classes. we hear a lot of talk this year about fairness, about the 1%. but we won't -- what we won't hear is that the top 1% of the wage earners in this country make 20% of the income. but pay 40% of the taxes.

you won't hear the other side that -- say, they won't define what is fairness, they just want more and more and more. when you do ask them to talk about what they would specifically have us go, go back to the clinton era tax rates on the top 1%, would pay only eight cents of every dollar of deficit in this nation. it's not designed to solve any problems and neither is this amendment. it's designed to continue to try and define us. you can look at this amendment, sir, and know it is simply offered for political gain. it doesn't attempt to define income inequality in the amendment. it's designed to make a political point. furthermore, you can get this information from joint tax to if you ask for it, that tool is available to us. mr. chairman, americans are not envious. they are more interested in how they are doing than in 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. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. fudge: can you tell me how much time i have remain, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. fudge: let me say for the record, 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 do not think the american people do not believe in fairness. i further don't believe that the american people believe in a nation where they can never accomplish the american dream. i don't think the american people believe that they cannot climb the ladder to success. i do not believe we live in a nation that people do not believe they can rise bf their circumstance. let me 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 i'm talking

about. this is not frivolous. this is what is right. this is what the american people want. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. >> we have roughly 10 months between now and the next election. plenty of time for the folks across the aisle to let us know what they mean by fairness. mr. mulvaney: tell us. what does it mean, when you say we want a fair tax code, what do you mean when you want people to pay their fair share. give us a real proposal and give us a real proposal that solves the problem. raising taxes on the top 1% won't accomplish what they say it will. it pays only eight cents of every dollar of deficit. let us know what fairness is, but i can assure you it is not this amendment. for that reason, i think we should defeat it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. ms. fudge: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part b of house report 112-383 -- 383. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment number five pripped in house report 112-383 offered by ms. jackson he of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i, too, want

to express my appreciation to the rules committee for allowing my amendment to come in. 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 engay gim -- engaining 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. all of us have found in our hearts an minds to recognize that small business is in fact the back bone 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 as to understand what the impact will be 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 estimated to have large budgetary effect. under this bill, there would be analysis that would come about on a number of issues. -- issues that would in fact involve the gross domestic product. the small business administration administers several programs to administration businesses, including underused business empowerment, the hub zone. it is an effective program, a small business assistance program that crosses the land. wherever you live, you have the opportunity to participate in the hub program, whose primary objective is job creation and creating capital investment in distressed communities, irrespective of your location an background. it provides small businesses in areas with low income, high poverty rates or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of source awards and

price evaluation preferences. this could happen to any community, one moment you could be thriving and a tornado could come to you and the next moment you are a hub zone to revitalize small business. i ask for this amendment that will make the determination that small businesses are important to all of us and assessment should be made using the hub zone and the impact such legislation would have. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. . mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i thank the gentlelady if texas for offering this amendment. but i would suggest the macroeconomic impact analysis that is required will annualize job growth and capital formation and economic growth. to add an additional criterion in the analysis is unnecessary and truly encourages focus on

the interest 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 continues to confound the information that would be provided to members. and focus on dividing things as opposed to germ 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 have heard our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about 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, 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, what again what this does is to provide much greater information for our colleagues here to be making decisions. 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 who has been marching, marching to the treasury to spend more and more and more and more ap

more and more money. plunging us into incredible debt, $1 trillion deficits for each of the four 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 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 truly be 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 is a better way and they know there

is 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 is an amendment 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 to 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

are going to increase the debt in this country, decrease the sense that businesses out there have any certainty in the economy and therefore, they aren't 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 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 make 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 can weigh the options? i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and adopt the underlying bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank you and 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 are 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 are rich today and poor tomorrow, catastrophic illness, devastation through a natural disaster, manmade disaster, a terrorist attack would put many of us in conditions that we would have never imagined. what dr. price has failed to acknowledge 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 that the tools are broken, but it may be that we are not using it. he acknowledged the faultiness of dynamic scoring. i'm asking for this amendment to take into consideration hard-working small business owners and 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 balance in increase in revenues to bring down the deficit is a peril that they're sending us to.

they have had hearings and those have acknowledged that the dynamic scoring does little. but it may impact negatively those hard-working 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 a overwhelming number of americans agree that we must do revenue and we must respond to the needs of the american people. none of us are reckless with increasing taxes, mr. speaker. we want to be balanced in what we do. i believe my amendment is a balanced amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: woy like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part b of house report 112-383. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment nument six printed in part b of house report 112-383 offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 534, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois.

mr. quigley: my amendment would create a c.b.o.-sponsored web site so taxpayers can find out how much will be learning 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 is 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 cost to the taxpayer

should be made transparent. if congress wants to pass a in crease the cost 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 that's the best way to rein out of control deficits. our constituents have a right to this information and we shouldn't skimp when it comes to transparency. i have been work oing this taxpayer receipt idea since 2010 and 15 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have joined me in supporting this similar legislation to this effect. however, at this time, i understand that the gentleman from georgia is opposed to this amendment. which pretty much guarantees it will go down in a blazing ball of martyrdom. while i'm a cub fan and we haven't won a world series since

before man's flight, i'm optimistic. i will withdraw this amendment if the gentleman will work with me to move this forward in a separate venue and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i claim the time in opposition. has the gentleman withdrawn the amendment? the chair: he has not withdrawn the amendment yet. mr. quigley: not farm alley. mr. price: has the gentleman yielded back? the chair: the gentleman has yielded back. mr. price: he is able to withdraw the amendment before yielding back? the chair: yes. before the rule. mr. price: i commend the gentleman from illinois for his amendment, but as we have had our staffs discuss, the amendment would mark a significant departure from c.b.o.'s historical mission, providing information to policy makers on fiscal and economic

implications to legislation. it would impose a significant new requirement to calculate the taxpayer benefit or costs of major legislation, something that candidly, mr. chairman, the c.b.o. lacks the expertise and experience to be able to provide. although it is commendable, i don't think it has the things 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 he has agreed to withdraw his amendment. as we move forward, to do something that believe to be commendable and provide much more information for hard-working taxpayers as well. and given he has agreed to withdraw the amendment, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. quigley: i just want 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, so ordered. it is now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in part b of house report 112-383. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment in the desk made in order under the rule. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in part b house report 112-383 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 534, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. let me con -- i congratulate the budget committee. 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 we ought to recognize that, and that's what dynamic scoring is all about. h.r. 3582 requires c.b.o. to provide a dynamic analysis with a gross budgetary impact greater than a quarter percent of the gross domestic product in any fiscal year. the threshold would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion. dynamic scores would be limited to bills with a gross impact of $40 billion a year. unless i'm unless i'm mistaken, that would have yielded scores for a couple dozen bills introduced last year, let alone the number that we considered.

the amendment that is ruled in order here would low they are threshold for requiring a supplemental score for any bill that would have greater than $5 billion in the year this would require setting the standard lower than the quarter percent of g.d.p., meaning that c.b.o. would have considerably more work to do. i'm 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. c.b.o. scores hundreds of bills a year. this is a lot more analysis they would have to do. but i think it is important. 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 c.b.o. i'm prepared to withdraw this amendment. i hope that as this process moves forward, that we can set a standard or threshold a little lower than $40 billion a year. i think that that would benefit lawmakers as we consider the impact of this legislation and i'm prepared to withdraw the amendment but i'm happy to yield my friend from georgia time he might need. mr. price: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding and i want to commend the gentleman for his wonderful work throughout his -- 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. i -- what the appropriate

thresh hole is, i think we're probably in the ballpark but i'm happy to work with the gentleman as we move forward to determine what that threshold is for legislation to considered in a macroeconomic fashion from c.b.o. i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and appreciate him working with me in the future and i yield back. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i support this legislation, it's good legislation and i look forward to working with the gentleman as we move ahead. i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn. the chair: is there objection to the unanimous consent request? seeing none, so granted. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight prinned in part b of house report 112-383. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. cloim amendment -- the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report

112-383 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline and a member opposed will control five minutes. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: 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 common sense proposal. 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 could hire -- should require disclosure of the impact on job creation of any legislation being considered by the full house. that was one year ago. yet here were today, rehashing a seemingly age-old debate over trickle-down economics. while we debate back and forth about what e-- about the

pro-growth budget act is another attempt to strengthen the case for large tax cuts while minimizing the cost, in my state, the state of rhode island, more than 60,000 men and women are without jobs. when we debate a bill with dim prospects of ever passing the senate, more than 3 million americans remain unemployed. just as many of you have seen in your own districts, what i have seen firsthand in my district, thele to that this recession has taken on our families, our businesses, and our communs. 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% unemployment, the toll continues. that's why one year later i'm still here expressing the same urgent need for congress to understand as we consider legislation what -- whether our legislative action actions will result in job creation or job loss. my amendment would strike the underlying language an replace

it with the text of the jobs 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 estimate the congressional budget office also prepare an estimate of the number of jobs which would be created, sustained or lost by enaxment of the legislation reported by the committee, including regional and state level estimates. a companion to the jobs score has been introduced into the senate be bipartisan support. republicans and democrats. a common sense 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 subjective and uncertain macroeconomic feedback in estimates this amendment goes beyond reviewing only major legislation and require a jobs impact assessment for every bill that requires a formal c.b.o. score.

my amendment is simple, straightforward, and should be a prosal that any member who is serious about focusing on jobs can support. given these challenging economic times, and their profound impact in the lives of men, women, and families throughout america, we need to ensure that the policies deliberated in congress, including the valuation of the impact on job creation, this amendment puts politics, partisanship an 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 reserve the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman from rhode island says that this is a simple proposition. and in that -- and in that,

he's correct. it's simply terrible. what he does with this amendment is 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 that 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 the gentleman doesn't think that effect on employment, oh, yes, mr. chairman, employment, on page four, line 24 of the legislation, i guess the gentleman thinks that that's not important. that the dynamic consequences of legislation brought forth

here that has significant effect on g.d.p. ought not be considered. i guess the gentleman believes that tax revenue, not tax cuts, mr. chairman, as i have stated from this position all afternoon, our friends on the other side seem to believe, in fact, the gentleman said that, quote, the bill would, quote, assume the inclusion of tax cuts, unquote. mr. chairman, there's nothing in this bill that assumes any inclusion of tax cuts or tax reductions or tax increases. all that this says, all that this says, is that legislation that has a significant effect on our gross domestic product of .25%, about $40 billion as has been talked about, that the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, our arm of the congress that is providing us with information to be able to give us the most amount of information so we can make the wisest decision ought to look at these things in a dynamic

way and look at economic jut put. 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? we would have done that over the past number of years, mr. chairman, maybe we would have made some better decisions. it's porn 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 remarkablely burdensome ott -- remarkably burdensome to the budget office. the bill already require an analysis of the effect of legislation on labor and 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 am of

work an burden. for example, mr. chairman, if debut oftentimes get criticized for naming post offices. we're going to assign somebody at the congressional budget office to consider the jobs impact of renaming a post office. talk about a redundant and worthless activity of the federal government, 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, includes the congressional budget office. they're above where they were in the mid portion of the last decade but wear beginning to get that spening under control this bill would indiscriminately add to the work load and provide no new information to members of congress. so i -- it is -- my friend from rhode island is correct, this is a simple amendment. it is simply a terrible

amendment and would completely end the underlying piece of legislation. so i urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: how much time do i have left? the chair: a minute and a half. mr. cicilline: the amendment i offered substitutes the existing bill because it is a terrible bill. that's why i proposed this amendment to substitute it to avoid what the bill on the floor does. it avoids the partisanship, the controversial economic policy on which there's so much disagreement and which we've heard about for the last hour. there's no hidden agendas to hide tax cuts while trying to use as a baseline the bush tax cuts. it puts aside all the disagreements that we just heard about for one hour and uses common sense and 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 the c.b.o. does an analysis of is jobs. will this bill create jobs if

we pass it? will it cause loss of jobs? that is the most urgent responsibility we have in congress right now. this bill imp smp -- simply says that analysis should be done on every bill that the c.b.o. does to say will it create jobs? will it cause the cost of jobs -- the loss of jobs? why is that information valuable? because we should be singularly focused oen job creation. we should avoid the kind of partisanship that disputes about trickledown economics, voodooic comms or using the bush tax cuts as the baseline. we need a commbs approach that says members of congress should have t information an should know, does this create jobs or does it not, before making a decision. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: how much time remains? the chair: 45 seconds. mr. price: the swrelt uses the appropriate buzzwords, trickle down, voodoo, partisanship, all of that. the fact is none of that is in

this bill. what's in this bill is an objective, common sense, common ground attempt to provide greater information to members of congress. his amendment strikes the entire underlying piece of legislation. again, page four, line 24. it calls on the c.b.o. to address the issues of dynamism as it relates to macroeconomic factors when bills are coming to the floor. unemployment, mr. chairman. i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and adopt the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expyred. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, noes have it. mr. cicilline: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postpone. . the chair: proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in part b, 112-383.

amendment number one by mr. peters of michigan. amendment number two, amendment number four, amendment number five, amendment number eight. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time of electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number one printed in part b upon which further proceedings were postponed and upon which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in part b of house report 112-383 offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: those in request of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 174, the nays are 244, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a record vote on amendment number two prinned in part b of house report 112-383 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postpone. the clerk: amendment number two printed in part bsks of house report 112-383, offered by mr. comely of virginia. the chair: those in support of the request for a railroaded vote will rise an remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is orered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. fund fun [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 177, the

nays are 270 -- 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number four by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in part b house report 112-383 by ms. fudge of report. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 171, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number five printed in house report part b, 112-383, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: amendment number five preprinted in house report 112-383. the chair: those in support of a

recorded vote will rise and remain standing. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 175, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays are 243, the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number eight. by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of house report 112-383 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded

vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote --