ideas that both parties had agreed to over the years to try to fuel the small businesses and entrepreneurs who are the fuel of the american economy. and he came to the floor with four ideas. the first was to cut taxes for small businesses that hire people, something people on both sides say they're for. we've never taken a vote on that idea. never since then. second, he came to the floor with an idea that as teachers are being laid off from the classroom and fire fighters are being laid off from our first responders and police officers are being taken off the street, why don't we help the cities and towns and states with a little bit of help that keep some of those people on the job, not only so they can do their job but so they can spend money in the stores and the restaurants and help small business? we have never taken a vote on that idea in those 15 2 days. . the third thipping the president said, let's put

construction workers back to work in building lie blairries for our schools, repairing roads, making sure rural america is wired for the internet. and those construction workers would then become the customers of the small stores and restaurants, the appliance stores that make america go. we have never taken a vote on that idea in the last 152 days. finally, the president said, let's avoid a massive tax increase on the middle class people in this country that was scheduled to go into effect on january 1 of this year. we sort of took a vote on that. and we were able to dredge out of that process a two-month extension to avoid that massive tax increase. that extension ends 22 days from today. in the two months since then there's not been one proposal on the floor to fix that problem. what we have on the floor today is a very interesting bill. and i frankly commend the seriousness of it.

the bill essentially says we should re-examine the method by which we value guarantees by the federal government. in other words, if you co-sign a note for someone, how should that show up on your balance sheet? that's essentially what this bill is about. this is a serious question. but i think the unemployed carpenter and small business owner about to close her store and the police officer who got his pink slip last week thinks it's a pretty irrelevant question. and what they would rather have us do is vote yes or no on cutting taxes for small businesses that create jobs. we vote yes. yes or no, on putting police officers, firefighters, teachers back to work. we vote yes. yes or no on helping the middle class by avoiding a massive tax increase on the american people? yes or no? what we ought to be doing is bringing those questions to the floor, those questions to the floor, and having debate.

instead we are having a debate that's serious but really belongs at the american society of c.p.a.'s not the house of representatives. let's get to work on the questions we are hearing at home. yes or no. we say yes to fueling the middle class job creators, the small business of this country. the majority responds with silence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say i agree with the gentleman. i agree with the gentleman that we must move jobs legislation out of this u.s. house of representatives. on to the united states senate, and to to the white house. this is a budget reform bill that as the gentleman accurately stated is a serious bill to address a serious problem. we didn't do this in january of last year, our very first term

in office. then we were working on repealing the president's health care bill which remains a national priority. we didn't do this last april when we were focused on presenting the serious budget that dealt seriously with the underlying debt drivers of this entitle programs for the first time since 1965. we didn't deal with these issues while we were trying to continue to fund this government through a regular appropriations process, a process that hasn't taken place in over three years. we have brought this bill to the floor today. what were we doing in the intervening time, mr. speaker? we were working on jobs. we were working on jobs because i agree with the gentleman that is something we must focus on. reducing regulatory burdens sits with the senate. energy tax prevention act sits with the senate. consumer financial protection soundness improvement act sits with the senate. small company capital formation act sits with the senate. i could go on and on consuming

all of our time because the gentleman is right. jobs are the priority and this house and this leadership and this congress has made it a priority. but to what end, mr. speaker? to what end? will we stop focusing on this national priority? absolutely not. will we continue bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor? that speaks to the needs of american families? you better believe it. but will we abdicate our responsibility? mr. speaker, i've got cards, plenty in my pocket, one is the united states constitution. do you know where the responsibility of the budget comes from, mr. speaker? this wasn't a power grab like so many things that go on in this house where we are removing power from the american people. this is a actually delineated responsibility of this house and i will not apologize for being down here focusing on those things that the constitution requires us to

focus on. now, that said, it's a fair question to say, but, rob, this is a small bill. this is a small bill. you know what? a lot of folks might take that as an insult, mr. speaker. i'm flattered by it. because as i have watched this process we have seen too many giant resolutions, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000-page resolutions come to this floor. is that practice gone forever? i suspect we'll see another monstrosity come our way, i hope not, but i suspect we will. but in the interim we can do better. on the budget committee, mr. speaker, we actually had that discussion. this is 10 separate pieces of legislation. my colleague from new jersey earlier was saying we want up or down votes on this floor. we want yes or no votes on this floor. i share his passion. that's what we have done. instead of bringing a giant omnibus budget reform bill that had lots of different things tied into it, mr. speaker, we

have decided to bring one idea at a time. just one. one idea at the time and allow this house, the people's house, to have that yes or no vote on whether or not this is an idea that has merit. i appreciate my colleagues' statement that this is a serious bill. to confront a serious issue. i will tell you, it has developed more meaning to me, mr. speaker, since i have been a member in this house for the last 12 months, it was edmund burke, he was a colleague of ours on the other side of the pond in the house of commons, and a huge supporter of the american revolution, he said this. no one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. no one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.

i confess, mr. speaker, i was a little naive when i showed up here as a freshman last january. i thought i was going to be able to fix it. thought my colleagues and i, you and i, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i, working to the, i thought we were going to be able to fix it. it's taken a little longer than i thought. those big bites at the apple have not been as successful as i hoped. have we passed here? yes. am i proud of them? yes. has the senate moved on them and sent them to the president? no. so we changed gears. bringing little ideas to the floor. those little ideas that as my colleague from new jersey mentioned are serious reform proposals. i'll say it again, mr. speaker, i'm proud of these underlying proposals. and i'm proud of this rule that makes them in order. to be clear it's a little unheard of in this house, and it's happened on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats alike have used this floor for their own devices. this rule makes in order every

single idea and suggestion that's germane to the underlying bill that was brought by either republicans or democrats. what's better than that? what's fairer than that? what is more american than that? i understand, i know the rules committee had some tough decisions to make up there, and occasionally a closed rule comes to the floor, i'm generally grimacing as much as anybody when that happens, i believe in the openness of this process, but to say send me all of your ideas and suggestions, mr. speaker, send them all to the rules committee, and for the rules committee to say anything that's germane, we have made in order today, mr. speaker, this is not a resolution to vote no on, this is the rule, not just a rule, this is the rule to come to the house floor and cast a proud yes vote today. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: how many more speakers does the gentleman

have? mr. woodall: we have no speakers remaining. mr. mcgovern: i will close for our side. mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i will agree with my colleague on the rules committee, what is before us today is a small idea. but the fact is that we have some big problems in this country. and they require big and bold solutions. like extending the payroll tax cut for middle class meshes. mark zandi, a republican economyings, worked for john mccain, said if we don't extend the payroll tax cut, it may cost as much as 500,000 jobs in this country. so it is a little bit puzzling to me, and i think to the american people who are observing this, that rather than bringing that bill to the floor or rather than bringing bills to the floor that will help enact the president's jobs program, or any kind of bill

that will help put people back to work, we are dealing with this, which my friend on the other side of the aisle, said is a small thing, small idea. i think we can do better. i think the american people are expecting us to do much better. we should be having a debate on our manufacturing agenda. we need to -- we need to get a tax structure in a place that encourages manufacturing in this country. we should be eliminating tax incentives and loopholes that encourage financial speculation rather than investment and outsourcing and offshoring production, and add tax incentives for companies that produce domestically. that's the kind of bill we should have on the floor now. a recommitment to investing in our infrastructure. i was hoping we would have a transportation bill that would be more worth supporting, by all accounts the transportation bill has become such a monstrosity that people on both sides of the aisle are opposed to it.

the "l.a. times" did an editorial saying the house republican leadership unveiled its version of the five-year transportation bill. it isn't just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan it has no chance of being approved by the democratic controlled senate, it's that it is less a rious policy document than wish list for oil lobbyists and it's funding proposals are so radical that they have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the reasona foundation, competitive enterprise institute, and taxpayers for common sense. i guess next week, the week after, we'll bring that bill to the floor. again i don't think anybody here thinks that's going -- it's not going to create jobs. it's not going to put people back to work. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the "l.a. times" editorial. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an editorial for "the new york

times" entitled the payroll tax fight and another "new york times" article, job grains, hope a recovery is blooming. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we are beginning to see signs of hope in our economy. what we should be is the wind at the backs of businesses and workers in this country. to try to enact policies that will help get this economy stronger. that will help create more jobs. that will help put people back to work. we are not doing that today. i'm saying vote against the rule, to send a signal to republican leadership enough. enough. let's start bringing serious things to this floor. for example the extension of the payroll tax cuts for middle class families and unemployment extension for those who are unemployed, no fault of their own. that's what we should be doing here. and we are not. so it is frustrating.

and so i guess we will waste the day doing this on a bill that goes nowhere, but i hope sooner rather than later that the republican leadership will finally understand the american people want us to focus on jobs. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to end where i began, that's in agreement with my colleague. he says we should be the wind at the back of small business. we should be the wind at the back of small business, nothing could be truer, mr. speaker. nothing could be more true. i don't believe that presiding over the largest regulatory expansion in the history of america is fulfilling the promise of being the wind at the back. that's wind in the face of america's small businesses. i don't believe that presiding over the largest tax increase in american history counts as being the wind at the back of

u.s. small business. i think that's a wind in the face of those small businesses. i do not believe that a new health care mandate is the wind at the back of small business. i believe that's a wind in the face of small businesses. but i take great comfort in knowing that while there may be all of those issues that divide us, there are principles that unite us. we should infact be the wind at the back of small businesses. . this bill, mr. speaker, this rule, this rule that makes in order every single idea to improve the underlying legislation, this budget reform rule is honest with the american people for the first time in my lifetime. you know, we hear so much talk about the payroll tax, mr. speaker. i know you're familiar with the way that accounting works. you know, when folks pay, and

for those of us in congress, for everybody back home, it's 15.3% of your paycheck. 15.3% out of every paycheck receiving americans pocket goes to the payroll tax which goes to fund social security and medicare. under the clever accounting rules that the congress and the president so elegantry crafted, when i pay my 15.3% out of my paycheck every month, when every american worker, mr. speaker, pays their 15.3%, with the expectation that medicare will be for -- there for them when they retire, with the expectation that social security will be there for them when they retire, when we all contribute the clever accounting rules here on capitol hill call that a credit. that's a credit to the united states government's treasury. it does not account for it as a

debit because now folks have promised to have social security and medicare there for me when i turn 67. it counts as a credit, mr. speaker. when we hire a new federal employee, every new federal employee we hire, mr. speaker, when they pay out of their monthly check to the federal employee retirement system, that pension that's available to every federal government employee, that payment that they make into the pension program is counted as a credit. it's as if the more federal employees we hire, the more money we'll make for america. no. because with every year of payment into that system they get something very large out. this is not news to any business owner in america, mr. speaker. this is not news to any business owner in america. they have to do this accounting every day. you want to talk about the crooks on wall street?

if wall street accounted the way the federal government does its accounting, they would in fact be crooks and they would in fact all be in jail. it's unconscionable. the rule that we pull, and we're all complicit in it, have been for years, the wool that we pull over the eyes of the american taxpayer and kudos to this budget committee and candidly to this budget chairman. chairman paul ryan and the chairman of the rules committee, chairman david dreier, have been working on fundamental budget reform for a decade. and what is it that neither party has had the courage to bring this forward until now, i do not know, but i stand here with pride to be associated with it today. mr. speaker, if you want to create jobs, call your senator, call your senator from your home state, mr. speaker, and share with them the importance of moving the pro-jobs agenda that

is sitting on their doorstep. i understand, mr. speaker, i wouldn't hold it against you if you can't remember all of the jobs bills we've passed, there have been so many. but you can see them. it's on the web. jobs.gop.gov. you can see it there, every single one. and you can see their status. now, in fairness to the senate, of the more than 30 bills we've passed, they've done a handful, and mean literally a handful, but dozens more sit there waiting. i want to say to you, mr. speaker, if the pitch from my colleague that we're abdicating our responsibility to focus on jobs took any root with you at all, let me say emphatically, not true, not true. our focus has always been on jobs, our focus will continue to be on the jobs. our focus has always been the economy, our focus will continue to be the economy. but there is a trust deficit in this town, there is a trust

deficit in this town. everybody hears it when they head home. everybody hears it from their constituency. i don't believe you. when you say it out of washington, d.c. i get it. i come up here, i read these budgets, mr. speaker. some of them are hard to understand, we've got a whole team of staff here to help us sort through those numbers. i rely on that staff. i'll go and talk to them and we'll go through it all line by line. it's hard to understand, it doesn't need to be. it doesn't need to be d.c. double speak. it can be georgia common sense that we bring to the budgeting process and that is what the underlying resolution does today. you know, mr. speaker, in 2001 when this president took office the c.b.o. projected a surplus of $889 billion. i'm sorry, 2001, when president

bush took office, a surplus of $889 billion by 2011. that turned into a $1.3 trillion deficit under two presidents. from $889 billion in surplus to $1.3 trillion in deficits and i tell you that every single spending bill that left this body over those years i was not in this body serving but i saw it day in and day out, every single spending bill was done with the very best of intentions. the very best of intentions. but where does that leave our children and our grandchildren? it leaves them $15 trillion in debt. you talk about being a wind at the back of small businesses, mr. speaker. i try to get my mind around what $15 trillion -- on its way to $16 trillion in debt means. do you know, if you're a small business owner in america, if you're a small business owner and you started a business on the day that jesus christ was

born, if you started your small business on the day jesus christ was born and you were so bad at it that you lost $1 million a day, $1 million a day every day, seven days a week, mr. speaker, from the day jesus was born until today, you would have to continue to lose $1 million a day every day, seven days a week, for another 700 years to lose your first $1 trillion. as stewards of the american people's money, mr. speaker, we've lost $15 trillion. much of that just in the last four years. anything that we can do, mr. speaker, no matter how big or small, that incorporates the american people into this budget discussion, that gives them the

best information that they can have, that provides to us the best information that we can have and that does away with the funny math that has almost become a punch line across this country is a step in the right direction. there's a trust deficit in this country and the underlying legislation today takes a very strong step towards correcting it. mr. speaker, i want to say again how much i appreciate chairman paul ryan and his work leading the budget committee, chairman david dreier and his work leading the rules committee. these two gentlemen have been champions of honesty in the budget process and what we have today, both in the rule and the underlying bill, is the realization of their tireless efforts. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this rule, vote yes on this rule that allows every single idea to improve the

underlying legislation that's germane to come to this house floor and then vote your conscience. vote your conscience on those amendments, vote your conscience on the underlying bill and i wager, mr. speaker, if this body votes its conscience on this underlying bill, it's going to pass this body and head to the united states senate. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. mcgovern: i ask nor the yeas and nays -- for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 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 further consideration of h.r. 1734. will the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1734 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real property and for other purposes.

the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on monday, february 6, 2012, amendment number 6 printed in house report offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-385 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-385 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

is the chair: on this vote the yeas are 190.

the chair: on this in 191, the nays are 230, the amendment is not adopted. there being no further eamedses, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the speaker: the committee reports that committee has had

under consideration the bill h.r. 1734 and pursuant to house resolution 537 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real properties and for other purposes.

the speaker: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of the bill h.r. 1734 is postponed. will members please take their seats. the house will be in order. the chair will not proceed until members take their seats.

the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a fax imly copy of a letter received from mr. streeve trout, director of elections, office of the secretary of state, state of oregon, indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held january 31, 2012, the honorable suzanne bonamici was elected representative to congress for the first congressional district, state of oregon. with best wishes, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. has, clerk of the house -- karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: mr. speaker, i ask that thank the gentlewoman from

oregon, ms. suzanne bonamici, be able to take the oath of office today. there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to who won her election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. defazio: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker: will represent-elect bonamici and the members of the oregon delegation present themselves in the members of the house -- well of the house and will all members please rise. and will the representative-elect please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obble gail gation freely, without -- obligation freely and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god? ms. bonamici: i do. the speaker: congratulations,

you're now a member of the 112th congress. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on behalf of the entire oregon congressional delegation, i'm pleased to introduce fellow oregon doc, italian american and the newest member of our delegation, congresswoman suzanne bonamici from the first congressional district of oregon. suzanne is a -- give it up, guys. suzanne's a former oregon state legislator and an attorney who

has worked on consumer small business issues with a distinguished record of accomplishments and service for the people of oregon. i know she'll be a strong and effective addition to our delegation in the house of representatives. suzanne, welcome and we look forward to working with you. and with that i would yield to my colleague from oregon, mr. walden. mr. walden: thank you very much. mr. speaker, on behalf of the entire republican delegation from oregon, i extend a very warm welcome to the newest representative from the beaver state, suzanne bonamici. she cuts a similar path to the people's house as the one i traveled, having served in salem as a state representative and a state senator and as my colleague from eugene points out is a fellow duck. having also earned a journalism degree as i did from the university of oregon. she joins a congressional delegation that has a long history of embracing what we call the oregon way. to set aside our differences and pursue solutions to take care of

the state's most pressing priorities. from congressman defazio and schrader and blumenauer to senators widen and americaly who are on the floor today, we have mounted a number of bipartisan efforts in the congress. so we are delighted to have you as part of this team. i can speak for the entire gellgation in saying we look forward to working with you and continuing on in the great service to the state of oregon. thank you and welcome to the congress. ms. bonamici: thank you. thank you so much. the speaker: the gentlelady from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. speaker boehner, leader pelosi. members of the oregon delegation, new colleagues from across this great country,

friends and family. this afternoon i'm honored to accept the responsibility and opportunity to represent the people of northwest oregon and the united states congress -- in the united states congress. i want to start by thanking my family for your love, encouragement, patience and sacrifice. my husband, michael simon, my children, andrew and sara, thank you. . . and thank you also to my mother for giving me the first job in your small business and instilling in me the values i hold today.

and thank you to all the individuals and organizations who stood by me and worked so hard over the past several months to help me reach this day. timely, and most importantly, to the people across the first congressional district of oregon, thank you for giving me this honor. it's great to be back in washington, d.c. i started my legal career here more than 27 years ago as a consumer protection attorney at the federal trade commission. a lot has changed in our world since then, but the importance of the work that happens here in the capitol and the significance of the decisions that are made in this historic chamber have not. oregon's first congressional district is full of promise and potential from the vineyards to the ports in astoria, to family communities in columbia county, the engines of industry in washington county, and the business and cultural districts in portland. it's a very diverse and dynamic part of the state.

yet there are too many families still struggling to make ends meet and they want to know that their voices are heard in our deliberations. our economy and the nation's confidence are both in need of rebuilding. as we work together, let us reremember that the unparalleled prosperity and creativity of this great nation over the last century can be traced to this promise, that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed in america. that's the america my grandparents crossed the ocean for, that's the america too many people believe is slipping away, and that's the america i want to work to rebuild. i'm excited to begin. i'm humbled by the tremendous responsibility and very appreciative of the trust that the people of northwest oregon have placed in me. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time.

the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, the whole number of the house is now 434. pursuant to rule 19, the clerk will report the the title. the clerk: a bill to decrease the deficit by realigning consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for other purposes. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? mr. michaud: mr. speaker, i have a motion to reconsider at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. me show of maine

-- michaud of maine moves to recommit the bill to the committee on transportation and infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to the house forthdid with with the following amendment. page 4 after line 21 insert the following, 10, properties owned by the department of veterans' affairs or other properties used in connection with providing services for veterans, including hospitals, clinics, and facilities that provide job training, posttraumatic stress disorder treatment, housing assistance, home homeless services and rehabilitative care. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes once the house is in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. michaud: thank you, mr.

speaker. i'm hoping today we'll see a rare bipartisan moment here in the house when both sides can come together in support of our veterans. the final amendment i'm offering here today will exempt certain v.a. facilities from the decommission process outlined in the legislation today. it will not kill this bill or even delay its passage. if it's adopted, my amendment will incorporate into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. i agree with my friends across the ime that we need to address -- across the aisle that we need to address government waste especially in this fiscal environment. and i can understand why it makes sense to attack the underutilized properties to reduce government waste. i don't think our desire to address these issues should come at the expense of our veterans. the underlying bill already includes plenty of exemptions to the process, namely for bases, camps, or stations under

jurisdiction of d.o.d. it seems to me that if the bill already excludes buildings from consolidation process because our troops rely on them, we should also exclude the buildings for our veterans because they rely on those buildings also. as ranking member of the v.a. health subcommittee, i heard testimony after testimony from veterans about the difficulties they face in accessing all the v.a. health services they need. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. michaud: the v.a. already provides health care to approximately 7.8 million veterans, as the wars in iraq and afghanistan winds down, more and more of the 2.3 million soldiers from those wars will start to seek care from the veterans administration. d.o.d. says that nearly 45,000

veterans from iraq and afghanistan have been wounded in action. and even this high number grossly underestimates the number of wounded soldiers who rely on the v.a. system for health care because the unseen wounds like ptsd, etc. we can't remember shutting down v.a. facilities when the need to help our heroes is increasing. in addition to health care needs, these soldiers will need help finding jobs. the veterans' unemployment rate was more than 15% in january of 2011. it's great news that it fell to 6% over the last year, but at 9% it's still above the national average. that is why we have to ensure that the v.a.'s ability to provide career services to returning soldiers isn't undermined. we don't know exactly , when where, or how these veterans will try to access the system, or whether they will be able to access ptsd treatment or find a job, but we should not

jeopardize their ability to do so by subjecting the v.a. to the same consolidation process as other federal agencies. if the bill exempts d.o.d. facilities, it should also exempt v.a. facilities. even g.a.o. whose analysis was used to justify this underlining legislation cites the unique needs of the v.a. given the increased demand of our returning troops was put on the system. as a result of the aiminging veterans population and growing number of younger veterans returning from the military operations in afghanistan and iraq, g.a.o. found that, i quote, budgeting for the v.a.'s vital health care mission is inherently complex. it is based on current assumptions and imperfect information. not only about program needs, but also on future economic policy actions that may affect demand and cost of providing these services, end of quote. this means that a

one-size-fits-all approach for consolidation of government property does not work for the v. oorks. there are a couple other reasons why the v.a. should be exempt from this bill. first, the v.a. has already recognized that it needs to upgrade, modernize, and realign its property portfolio to provide accessible and cost-effective services. in fact, they have been working on that since 1999. in 2008, g.a.o. said the department has reduced ids its underutilized space in four years by 2/3. second, g.a.o. found that 66% -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman will proceed. mr. michaud: second, g.a.o. has found that 66% of v.a.'s

underutilized and vacant buildings are historic properties or eligible for historic designation and require more effort for disposal. i applaud the other side for looking for ways to cut government spending and there are clearly improvements to be made in the area of federal properties. but we can't pursue the goal of reducing government spending at the expense of our veterans. in congress we frequently mention our great -- how grateful we are for our troops and we often talk about the need to make sure that no veteran is left behind. well, i'm offering the final amendment on this bill to make sure that we leave no veteran behind on behalf of our hero, they deserve our commitment. i urge my colleagues to support the final amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. first of all the president's

commission in his brac includes v.a. properties. as well as former v.a. secretary precippy testified before our committee we ought to look at all properties, including a.v. we are going to do the best interest of american taxpayers, we better address waste in government overall. across the entire nation, across every agency. there's a property not being used today, then we ought to look at either redevelopment it or selling it off. mr. denham: this gives us an opportunity to have republicans and democrats come together on something that the president included in his jobs bill to actually create american jobs. the old post office right here in washington, d.c., is a perfect example of waste in government. we have had a property sitting well over a decade that cost us $6.5 million in upkeep every single year. now we have redevelopment happening where we've got different hotel companies coming in not only bidding on it, creating 150 new jobs in construction, but an additional 150 jobs in ongoing jobs once this facility is redone.

keeping it in its historic fashion and actually being able to utilize it once again. an opportunity to redevelop things that aren't being used today but also selling off things that have been sitting for decades. our federal government has a horrible track record of selling properties that aren't being used. in fact, we sold 82 properties in the last 25 years. we can do much better and the american taxpayers demand we do better. here's a bipartisan opportunity to get both parties to come together and sell things we don't need. if you want to bring in revenue to reduce our debt, here's an opportunity to get rid of things we don't need, redevelop things that aren't being used, and get rid of the pace in government. almost $2 bill we waste every year in maintaining property that again aren't needed in government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1734, if ordered, and adoption of house resolution 539. 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 -- some on this vote

the yeas are 186. the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. >> madam speaker, on this matter i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is 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 will be 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: the yeas are 259. the nays are 164. the bill is passed. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 539 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 110, house resolution 539. resolution providing for

consideration of the bill h.r. 3581, to demand a balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985, to increase transparency in federal budgeting, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 239 and the nays are 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? 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. 3581, the budget and accounting transparency act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 539 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3581. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3581 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985, to increase transparency and federal budgeting and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule,

the bill is considered read the first time, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, will each control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: madam chairman, i want to thank my colleagues who helped pass the pro-growth budgeting act last week. today we are here to continue that work. focused on changing washington's culture of spending and ensuring policymakers serve as responsible stewards of hardworking american tax dollars. i stand in strong support of the budget and accounting transparency act, offered by the chire vice chairman of the budget committee, congressman scott garrett of new jersey. while it's well known that washington has a spending problem, it is less well known that washington isn't being fully honest about how much it is spending. this bill would increase transparency, inaccuracy in budgeting for federal credit programs. the housing related government sponsored enterprises, fannie

mae and freddie mac, and the publication of budget justification materials. first, it would require fair value accounting which recognizes the market risk that the government is incurring by issuing a loan or a loan guarantee. for all federal programs that make loan or loan guarantees, market risk is already accounted for in several government programs like tarp and g.s.e.'s and it's a very common practice in the private sector. second, this bill would bring fannie mae and freddie mac on budget. these enterprises rack up billions in liabilities hidden from the public and from taxpayers. last june the c.b.o. testified that it put the total cost of the mortgage commitments made by these two entities at $291 billion and that that cost would ultimately rise even higher. third, this bill increases transparency for information contained in agency budget requests, requiring that they be made public on the internet at the same time as they are provided to congress. government agencies have an

obligation to taxpayers to justify every dollar spent in washington. madam chair, no budget process reform can substitute for political will when it comes to tackling our great of the fiscal and economic challenges. getting america back on track will require a senate and a president willing to get serious about the structural drivers of the debt and the continued impediments we have to economic growth. but being honest about the size and scope of our challenges, as this reform calls for, offers us a concrete step in that right direction. at this time, madam chair, i would like to yield the remainder of our time for the purposes of managing the bill to the author of this bill, mr. garrett, the vice chairman of the budget committee, and with that we will reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman will be recognized. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. here we are another day on the floor of the house, another day when we haven't taken up the president's jobs bill that he

presented right here before a joint session of congress last september. we've had some good news in the economy, some numbers that show that we have a fragile recovery going on. it would be a huge mistake not to do everything we can to nurture that recovery so i hope we will finally take up the president's proposal and i hope that the ongoing conference committee on the payroll tax cut will complete its work in an expeditious manner. now, with respect to this particular bill that is before us, it raises some very serious and very complicated issues regarding budget accounting for credit programs. and i want to commend mr. garrett from new jersey. i want to commend him for raising some legitimate issues as part of this conversation, issues that deserve our attention. but it is totally premature to

bring this bill to the floor without having more hearings and more review. in the budget committee we've not had a single hearing on the comprehensive question of how we deal with all the credit programs and how to account for them. we had one hearing with respect to whether we apply this to the f.h.a., the federal housing administration, but this bill goes way beyond that and would direct c.b.o. to change its method of accounting for credit programs like student loan programs and for other programs throughout the u.s. government. it has very far-reaching consequences. this is a matter on which people who have spent their lives looking at the budget disagree and so the budget committee at the very least could spend a few hours on a hearing to understand fully the consequences of doing this. i just want to read from a letter that was sent to us from

the former head of the nonpartisan independent congressional budget office, robert ryshower. and he says, i strongly oppose this change. he goes on to say, the accounting convention used since the enactment of the credit reform act since 1990 already reflects the risk that borrowers will default on their loans or loan guarantees. he goes on to say, h.r. 3581 proposes to place an additional budgetary cost on top of the actual cash flows. and he goes on to explain what is a very complicated issue, a very complicated matter. i would say to my colleagues, not that this isn't an appropriate question for the budget committee to take up, but it's totally inappropriate for the congress to direct the c.b.o. to take up the different accounting method which is just not ready for primetime and for which we have not had the time to really thoroughly review all

its consequences. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the chair and i just want to yield myself as much time as i consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: at the start i would like to thank chairman ryan and the budget committee staff sfor their hard work regard to h.r. 3581, the budget accountability transparency act. once you've been living someplace else other than here for the last year, you would not be surprised to hear that this country is broke. however, we should not surprise you that the true extent of our country's debt, crisis, is a lot worse than anybody in washington is letting on to. how much worse? well, that's something that people really don't know. and we won't ever know unless we reform the broken budget process here in d.c. many have talked about before our budget process is broken. simply put, we need to put and make the budget process more transparent and accountable. fortunately today we are taking a step in the right direction with this bill. the bill before us today, the

budget and accounting transparency act, is as they say a commonsense approach to introduce more sunshine and common sense into the budget making process. so what would the bill do? first of all, specifically the bill recognizes the budgetary impact of the g.s.e.'s, fannie mae and freddie mac and by bringing them back onto budget and close that black hole that's out there and bring that out of the shadow and into the light. this bill also requires the federal government apply the very same credit accounting standards as the private sector is doing right now when guaranteeing loans. back in september of 2008 as the country was realing from the fallout of the financial collapse, the g.s.e.'s, fannie mae and freddie mac, were placed into conservativeship by the f.h.a. they took control of the two companies and the treasury department risked literally hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to bail them out. to date the american taxpayer has sunk over $183 billion and counting into those failed institutions. as if this weren't enough, they've added $1.2 trillion in

debt and $5.3 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. because fannie mae and freddie mac have become the explicit financial responsibility of all of us, the federal government, it only makes sense, don't you think, that we treat them the same way that we would treat any other obligation of the federal government, by formally bringing them onto the budget. the c.b.o. even says this, they took the step several years ago by the office of management and budget to obscure the federal exposure of fannie mae and freddie mac. it's time that the obama administration does the same thing. so, bringing fannie mae and freddie mac exposes some of the ugly and maybe call them inconvenient truths, but i know the american people did not send us here to play a shell game, but did send us here to bring out the facts. if you combine debt obligation to fannie mae and freddie mac isn't the only black cloud hanging over us. there's inaccuracies and lack of transparency and budgeting for federal credit programs across the field. you can talk about the solyndra situation that makes the news, that fiasco was an example of a

loan guarantee gone so you ow -- sour. federal loan guarantees are contractual obligations between the taxpayer, the private creditor and the borrower, in that case it went south. but unfortunately under current law when the government loses or issues a loan guarantee, the inherent risk is not reflected in the loan or loan guarantee cost. in fact, the c.b.o. estimates that our current federal obligation under these accounting rules today understate the cost of cret program by some $55 billion a year. and because of rule -- the rules do not account for market risk, that is why we need to change it. and with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time only to say that this does those three important things, provide the clarity, the transparency, and the accountability that we are looking for in these and other aspects of the federal government programs. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from

new jersey, a member of the budget committee, mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the title of this legislation that the budget and accounting transparency act, maybe they should have stopped there, madam speaker. because the rest of the bill isn't transparency at all. we still want to dole in the midst, we still want to believe that if we don't pay our bills and if we don't pay the bills that we have, the federal government, that everything is going to be all right. the bond rating agencies don't think so. nor does anyone else. so when you put the country in jeopardy of not paying its own bills, here's who you hurt. you hurt the middle class.

you hurt the working poor. hurt the poor. this is nothing more than a back door method, this bill, to politicize and eliminate important federal investments. been trying to do that, madam speaker, for four years. it hurts the middle class, hurts working folks, hurts the economy. the elected use of the fair value accounting is the acts that these extreme methods will take to spending on education, our small businesses and the next generation of clean technology. this bill that we are discussing right now requires that certain programs that make loans, whether they be student loans, small business administration loans or department of energy loans for

clear energy products will be scored more than what the government actually spends and you don't even deny it. in short, fair value accounting doesn't call a nickel a nickel. it calls it 10 cents. artificially inflating spending levels in loan payments and loan programs puts the squeeze on important federal programs that families rely on, particularly in difficult times. you can laugh all you want, madam speaker, but this is the truth. families are being squeezed out there, and i know that you know -- you don't, madam speaker, that this is important to the daily living of folks that you represent and i represent. and i'm not getting personal. i am saying what we as representatives are.

we got to represent the people in our district, whether they're hurting or not, and i understand that we have had many bills on the floor of this house in the past three years to squeeze the economy and what has it resulted in, you squeeze the states, you squeeze the municipalities. can i have one more minute? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one more minute. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker. you squeeze them so they lay off police officers, firefighters, and you're telling them, madam speaker, don't worry about it. this will all be over. this is simply we are all going to have shared pain. yeah, sure shared. this bill will jeopardize our economic recovery by putting the brakes on the housing market. it will bring us closer to another debt ceiling debate. madam speaker, i think that's

where we want to head, some of us. let's have another debate over the debt ceiling. let's have another debate as to whether we should pay our bills so we can shut down the place. and for you to preside over and get folks to believe that if you shut the government down maybe that wouldn't be so bad either. not paying our debts wouldn't be so bad. i don't know what planet we're living on. this country needs pro-growth economic policies. we need to take actions. the first action we should take is to vote down this transparency act. thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: madam speaker, just as we recognize that the american taxpayer has already been squeezed by such expenditures of $527 million by the failed loans through solyndra we recognize they must recognize these put on the record so we understand what they're truly cost and a

gentleman who has been a leader in this regard, the leader in the area of budget transparency and fixing the american budget here in congress is the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate his leadership and certainly his leadership is one of the foremost budget hawks in the entire united states congress. madam chair, we just learned that the president will not be a day late and a dollar short with his budget. instead, he will be a week late and $1 trillion short on his budget. we also learned from the congressional budget office this will not be his first year, his second year, hi third year but his fourth -- his third year but his fourth year to be $1 trillion short on his budget. now, madam chair, we received a little good news next month. 200,000 of our fellow citizens

were able to find work. almost 13 million remain unemployed. more people on food stamps than ever before. half of all americans are either low income or in poverty under the policies of this president. it is clear that this president's policies have failed. they have made our economy worse. and because he cannot run on his record, he's regrettably turned to the politics of division and envy. to help the economy, to help create more jobs, madam chair, number one, we got to quit spending money we don't have. and second of all, the american people, job creators, have to be able to know that they have a fact-based budget, one that is honest as the american people themselves. we need fair value accounting. you know, if you're a small business in the fifth district of texas and you don't have fair value accounting, you

probably go broke. well, the federal government doesn't use fair value accounting. and guess what, the federal government is broke. that's why we must pass the gentleman from new jersey's bill, the budget and accounting transparency act. no more fannie and freddies, no more solyndras. let's ensure we account for these cost as part of the republican plan for america's job creators to give our job creators the confidence they need to hire and grow this economy. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, madam chair. it's unfortunate that some of our republican colleagues can't take just a moment away from politics to celebrate the fact that we did have some good economic news over the last month, over 250,000 private sector jobs created. that's good news. is it enough? of course not. of course we need to do more which is why we'd like to see

our republican colleagues bring the president's jobs bill to the floor of the house. it's still sitting somewhere around here that includes a proposal to invest in our infrastructure. you know, roads and bridges and broadband so we can make sure that we have an economy that can compete and win with respect to our global competitors so it would be great to take up that bill. in the past, investment in infrastructure has always been a bipartisan initiative, but the president's proposal is still languishing. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, a member of the budget committee, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chair, thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to join my fellow democratic members of the house budget committee to express my

confusion and disbelief over our colleagues' decision to make a spectacle out of the so-called budget process reform bill rather than using our time to wisely address serious economic policy and make long-term overdue process improvements. i admire my republican colleagues for raising the issue of the need to have a better budgeting process, but these are just spectacles. this so-called budget and accounting transparency act is an example of that. h.r. 3581 would change the way we budget for government loans by requiring estimates for these loans. compamplets, student loans, energy loans, housing, small business loans be done on a so-called fair value basis. these estimates account for so-called market-based risk.

now, experts, experts argue that so-called fair value estimates overstate the true cost of government credit programs because the estimates include a risk premium that never materializes in the government's cash flow. it's also critical to note that in every single discussion of h.r. 3581 and fair value estimates that if we apply this policy, not just to credit product, but governmentwide like to medicare or to ag programs or some of the favorite programs of our -- the majority, it would increase estimated subsidy costs for the government for all loan programs by more than $50 billion. but you know what, that may in fact be consistent with what the authors and proponents of this bill want to see. we heard, madam speaker, our good friend, mr. garrett, start his opening speech with how the

country is broke. we heard mr. hensarling talk about the food stamp president. will you yield another minute? i have to talk about the food stamp president a little bit. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one additional minute. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. how we ought to stop spending. well, this in fact accomplishes that purpose by overstating the budget risk, the accounting risk that's already accounted for in the credit reform act of 1990, by overstating the cost of these programs, it in effect reduces the base for our budget. if that is their mission, it will be accomplished with passage of these bills. it doesn't make any sense, madam speaker, to try to put freddie and fannie on budget when right now in the financial services committee, which some of these members sit, we are trying to make a major overhaul

of freddie and fannie and their fate has not been determined yet. the o.m.b., the c.b.o., both of the instruments, institutions that we rely upon for budgeting are not prepared to bring this online. i would urge the body to reject these proposals that have not been vetted. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. moore: and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. departegarte i thank the gentlelady for commending us for raising these issues, but actually, we're doing something more than raising the issue, we're addressing and solving this problem as well. and i appreciate the fact that the lady -- the gentlelady raises the experts who is concerned. doug akin, now with american action forum, writes here to express support of h.r. 3581. the gentlelady also notes, she serves on the committee when it comes to this issue that we had

this issue up in committee recently and asked the current c.b.o. director, with regard to moving towards fair value and he said that's the more appropriate purpose of evaluating the obligations of the federal government. so we have the experts, i would like to, without objection, put the letter of january 30 from american action forum into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. garrett: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, a family that excludes from its family budget the mortgage payments that knows it must make is diluting itself and it's sab dodging its finances. that's what -- sabotaging its finances. that's what the federal government is doing with the billions of responsibilities of the failed sponsorship of fannie mae and freddie mac.

it requires that the enormous liabilities incurred by fannie and freddie be accounted for in the federal budget process using exactly the same accounting standards for loans that we already insist upon with mortgage lenders. i wish this bill abolished fannie and freddie outright. i wish it restored the days when banks or borrowers who made bad decisions took responsibility for them and didn't demand that their neighbors pay for their mistakes. but can't we at least agree that the public has a right to expect that the costs of this are honestly accounted for in our nation's budget? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma -- actually, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you so very much.

madam speaker, i'm grateful that we are going to shine the light into credit costs and credit issues. if you go to any community bank, any other bank you want to go for and talk about fair value, they would know exactly what we're talking about because we as the federal government require that of them. now, this is another one of those instances that the federal government has exempted them self from the rules that everyone else has to live under. fair value is not some radical different proposal. it takes into effect the real risks that are sitting out there on the horizon, those that need to be taken into account. it's how we evaluate every bank. this bill addresses three real issues. let me try to address those three. the real cost, that's number one. the real cost in washington is incredibly difficult to define nowaddais. if we want to know what is the real cost with the risk involved, this is the only way to be able to get it is in this fair value estimate. second real, the real issue in the past couple of years is fannie and freddie.

for the first time we're getting to the real issue. and starting to deal with how do we handle fannie mae and freddie mac, where do get from here? so we're getting the real cost, we're beginning to deal with the real issue which is fannie mae and freddie mac and finally we're finally getting real transparency. we should let every american see what's in our budget and hour we're handling it and the costs that are out there. this puts it online and puts it out there for every american to look at. what's the real cost, how are we going to hand this will in real ways and how do we get real transparencies? with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. if this legislation only dealt with fannie mae and freddie mac, that's something that i certainly would support. in fact, the congressional budget office already puts fannie mae and freddie mac online. i know it's an easy catch phrase but the reality is, behind the discussion of fannie mae and freddie mac is a whole other discussion about whether we want

to apply these rules to things like student loans. and the reality is that if you apply this methodology to student loans, you will systematically overestimate the cost in the budget in terms of outlays. i would just like, madam chair, to refer the body to a report that was written by two of the prime advocates for this. it's called reforming credit reform. deborah lucas was one of the co-authors, this was in public budgeting and finance, winner of 2008. and just let me read a portion. because it says, including a risk premium in subsidy cost, produces a cost estimate that on average exceeds outlays for realized losses. that discrepancy between cash flows and subsidy costs must be reconciled in the budget so that

over the life of a credit cohort, actual cash flows match budget costs in expectation. now, as i said, this is a complicated issue and that sounds like a lot of complicated budgety gobby gook. bottom line is what this bill does is systematically, systematically overestimate the costs in the budget on a cash flow basis. and it's important that everybody understand in this. right now -- understand this. right now when the federal government budgets for credit risk, we take into account the default rate. in other words, whether it's student loans, whether it's clean energy loans, whether it's fannie and freddie, people make an assessment about what the likely default rate is and that is taken into account and then discounted, present value, when you put together your budget. now, even the advocates of this legislation concede that. that's not a question. we already do that. and even the advocates of this

legislation can see that it will again systematicallying in the budget have a higher cost number associated with outlays than reality will dictate. what do i mean by that? it will say that student loans are actually more expensive on a cash basis than they really are. let me repeat that. if you direct that the congressional budget office move to this kind of accounting, the numbers that will appear in the budget on a cash basis will systematically, systematically exaggerate, inflate the costs of a credit program. what that means is that if you're members of congress and you're looking at a proposed student loan program and you're looking at the numbers that are forecast, you're going to think that it's more expensive in cash terms to the taxpayer than it really is.

on average over time. and therefore you're going to be less likely to make that investment potentially. so, i think it's important as we look at this that we recognize that in place of something that, as i said, the former head of c.b.o. has said provides an accurate picture of the cost on a cash basis to replace that with something that systematically gives us a different picture and one that systematically exaggerates the costs, would be a mistake. again, i just end this portion here by saying, we just don't think this is ready for primetime. we don't think that we've fully understood all the impacts. there are experts on both sides of this issue. but it seems to me the budget committee could at least devote one hearing to this general topic. again, we had one hearing on

applying this to f.h.a.. if you want to apply it to fannie mae and freddie mac, c.b.o. already does that. no problem. but this leaps from that to applying it throughout the budget including student loan programs and i don't think we've begun to understand what impact that would have on the affordability of going to college and the other impacts throughout the budget. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: the gentleman from maryland speaks of the report of 2008, i guess that was, and also speaks to reference to the center of budget and policy priorities. in front of me i'll ask under general leave to enter this into the record as well. just leently, just this week, i guess, he has now issued the final report and this report says as follows, this comment responds to a recent release from what the gentleman is referring to, from the center on budget and policy priorities.

and what de-does he say? my view is -- and what does he say? he says they misrepresent his work and more fundamentally incorrectly characterizes the purpose and consequences of moving to a fair value approach to credit valuation in the budget. one of his main points is the legislation before us would do what? it would remove phantom gains to the government from budgetary treatment of direct lending and loan guarantee programs. these games mislead public policymakers about the costs of their policy decisions. what does that mean? what that means is the numbers the gentleman from maryland was talking about that are actually making more and over time exceeds outlay, marvin is here saying, no, just the opposite. that this bill would address that, it would remove those gains and show it for the reality of what it is. and with that i would like to yield two minutes now to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam speaker. today i rise in support of h.r.

3581, the budget and accounting transparency act. the first step in treating an addiction is admitting you have a problem. an addict has to be honest with himself before he can overcome his dependence. in that same vein, washington needs to be honest about its addiction to overspending that bill will force washington to do just that. it will force washington to be honest not only with itself but more importantly with the american people. by bringing fannie mae and freddie mac on budget, washington will be honest that these expensive programs have become the responsibility of the federal government. by requiring risk to be assessed and accounted for in loans or loan guarantees, washington will be honest about the gains or losses taxpayers can anticipate. and by requiring every agency to post their budget request online, washington will have to be honest with the american taxpayers about where their money goes. a lot of honesty is needed now,

madam speaker, but a little bit will go a long way in restoring the trust to the american people and the fiscal discipline of washington can re-- can we restore the trust to the american people? yes, we can. can we restore fiscal discipline in washington? yes, we can and yes we will with passage of this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. i was just actually reading from the original document, reforming credit reform, where they say straight out here that including a risk premium and subsidy cost produces a cost estimate that on average exceeds outlays for realized losses. now, we can argue whether that's an appropriate methodology or not, but the reality is it will, as a budgetary matter, systematically inflate the cash outlays for different credit programs going forward. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i don't believe we have any other speakers. then i'm -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. again, i wish we were here debating the president's jobs plan. i wish we were focused on bringing to the floor the conference committee reports so that we could provide relief to 160 million americans through the payroll tax cut. with respect to the budget bill before us, as i indicated, it's just not ready for primetime. you would think that before undertaking a change which seems small, is very complicated and could have lots of unintended consequences, especially with respect to things like student loans, as i've said, if we are

confining this debate and this bill to things like fannie mae and freddie mac, i have no problem. in fact, the congressional budget office already applies this methodology to fannie mae and freddie mac. but the scope of this is much, much broader than that. it goes, as i said, to all credit programs including student loan programs and will, as a matter of accounting, show in the budget greater dollar outlays than will actually re flect the ongoing costs of things like student loans. again, the systemic way. the last point i want to make, madam tchare, -- madam chair, is one that was raised by one of my colleagues which is where do you actually draw the line when it comes to moving in the direction of this other kind of accounting? now, this bill applies to all credit programs but there are other programs funded by the federal government where the costs rise and fall base on

what's happening in the market. based on what's happening in the economy. there are lots of ag programs that rise and fall based on what's happening in the economy. medicaid is a program whose costs rise and fall based on the economy. and in talking to lots of people, it's not clear where you draw a bright line. and i certainly don't know where the argument ends with respect to moving toward this kind of accounting. and before we begin to move even further in this direction, i think we should have a debate on what exactly that would mean for our budget and for the american people. so, again, i commend the gentleman for raising an issue, especially as it's been in the context of fannie mae and freddie mac. i think this deserves a lot more attention before you expand it

throughout all the credit programs of the united states government. i'm particularly concerned the impact it would have on the affordability of going to college and student loans and then as i said, there's no clear demarcation between the credit programs and the argument that's being applied here and to some of the other programs where the risk to the taxpayer also fluctuates based on market risk and the performance of the economy. so, madam chair, i would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. van hollen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and again i'll say to the gentleman as well, as your colleague did as well, commended us for raising this important issue and do agree that it is an important issue. but i think the american public is tired of washington simply raising important issues and discussing important issues and having committee hearings on

important issues. i think the american public is looking for washington once and for all to take some decisive action in the name of the american public. in the name of the hardworking taxpayers whose money it is that is on the line. it is the people's money that we are talking about in all of these bills. it is the bill's money that has been put on the line when the federal government issues loans and loan guarantees. and ought to remind the gentleman from maryland about how much money we've been talking about in all of these things. when we talk about all the bailouts that the american public stood and railed against, rightfully so, as did i, whether it was the oil bail joithouts or the bank bailouts or the wall street bailouts, they all pale in comparison to the bailouts that we're talking about here with the g.s.e.'s. $186 billion and counting. the gentleman, mr. ryan, raised the issue before that i believe was going to go up to $280 billion, $290 billion and

counting. that's not washington's money or the government's money or the gentleman from maryland's money. that's the hardworking american taxpayers' money that was initially put at risk without any idea of what the real risk was going to be for all these other loan programs and now is going out as outlays and now is going out without any prospect whatsoever of ever being repaid. now, the gentleman says, well, these exceed these estimates of fair value accounting may exceed outlays. well, they exceed it until they don't. they exceed it until the loan fails. they exceed it until you're talking about a solyndra situation where you guarantee up to over $500 million and then the company goes bust. and that's what we're trying to address here to make sure that you're actually properly grading and accounting for this. we're not asking for something extraordinary. i know the gentleman from new jersey came to the floor and said, this is extreme. what we're asking for here. extreme? why do we have ask the private sector to use the same sort of accounting? why do we ask the mom and pop

shops, the big wall street firms and everything in between to use this sort of accounting when they do so? why do we ask your local bank, when you go in there and ask for a student -- when ask you for a student loan, a car loan, a house loan, whatever, we ask those banks to use this same form of accounting. if it's good enough for the rest of society, if it's good enough for all of my constituents and your constituents, if it's good enough for all the businesses back at home, my gosh, i think it's good enough for the federal government to play by the same rules and that's all we're asking for here, he says, how far should we go? i think we should go as far as the say -- to say that the federal government should have to do the exact same thing, play by the exact same rules that our businesses back at home have to do and that's all this bill does. it shines the light of day on what we're spending and if we're spending too much, then we have to do what we're elected to do, set priorities, decide where we want to spend it on this program or that program, to or maybe cut back on this program and expand someplace else. but we can't make those

decisions until we actually have the information before us. we can't say, this one is working and this one is not working this one is worth while and this one's not whort while until we have that information before us. and that's the long and short of it. that's all this bill does is gives us, both sides of the aisle, the american public, that information. i would call for support of this legislation, sunshine, transparency in the way the federal government runs its business. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant 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 recommended by the committee on the budget printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 112-13. that amendment in the nape of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.

no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-388. each such amendment may be offered only in the report 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 not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject for demand of the division of the question. the chair understands that the amendment number 1, number 1 amendment will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-388. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. dold: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-388 offered by mr. dold of

illinois. mr. dold: thank you, madam chairman. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 539, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate it. this is a bipartisan amendment, one that my colleague from illinois, mr. quigley, and i believe strongly about and as part of this congress' effort to increase transparency and promote sound accounting practices in the federal government, this amendment would reform accounting practices at the office of management and budget. specifically would require the o.m.b. director to prepare all budgets submitted to the president to use acrurel-basis -- accrual basis and cash-basis accounting standards. the american people deserve accountability and transparency from their federal government and right now the mistrust of

congress, i believe, is at an all-time high. the use of accrual base accounting would reflect our true fiscal state. for too long the federal government has used unsound budgeting practices that's distorted liabilities held by the government. as a small business owner i know essentially how honest accounting can critical to financial decisionmaking, and in that respect we should strive to make the federal government's practices more like what we demand of the private sector. in fact, the government itself, madam chairman, demands that publicly traded companies use the accrual based accounting method because the accrual based accounting method gives a more ackrit depiction of the true liabilities out there and the cash basis you're able to distort reality and be able to

manipulate things to make them look a little bit rosier. the american people are looking for a fact-based budget, and they deserve no less. they deserve to know the truth of what our true liabilities are, and the truth is that the current practice of using only cash basis accounting at the office of management and budget paints an incomplete picture of our nation's future long-term liabilities. for example, the promise of social security and medicare only show up as the cost to the american taxpayer when money is actually paid out. accrual accounting is more accurately reflects our nation's obligations so that a promise today is immediately recognized and accounted for. whether or not any money has been dispersed at that point in time. madam chairman, i am confident that the house budget committee recognizes the importance of honest accounting, of honest accounting practices, that

accurately reflect the true fiscal state of this country. as a small business owner i understand that it is absolutely critical in making decisions that impact not only the business but the people that i work with that we have a more accurate reflection of our liabilities. the government should be no different and with that i'd like to yield, if i may, to mr. garrett from new jersey just for a few moments. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: yes. first of all, let me begin by saying i appreciate the gentleman's effort with regard to this legislation. appreciate, also, the bipartisan nature and attentions behind the amendment as well. there are unquestionably circumstances where accrual accounting is the best way, the most appropriate way to display a federal government's budgetary cost and obligation. now, as you know, the underlying bill does focus on one such area where accrual accounting has long been in use

and what it does then is to try to build upon that years of experience and to try to study the app i will cage of that as applied to federal credit programs. the underlying bill, i should say, as an aside, shows another study -- there is a question of how far we go in these things. another area where it might be appropriate to extend this and this is with regard to the federal insurance programs. why is that? because we don't have as many studies on that. i might just add to the point of the gentleman from maryland before, there have been a number of references on the areas we're looking to. c.b.o. has done with regard to student loans, with regard to housing, with regard to s.b.a. and energy. c.b.o. has issued a number of reports of fair value accounting and that's why we included it in the bill. i appreciate the gentleman's work on this legislation. i -- on the amendment. i oppose it as it stands, however. mr. dold: and if the gentleman

-- if the chairman will work with me to make sure we have a fact-based, more accurate and honest accounting i would be happy to withdraw the amendment. mr. garrett: not only will i work with you, i believe the chairman of the full committee will be working with you on this as well. the goal is the same by all of us here and i think about the other side as well to try to get as much information that is appropriately -- that is able to get out to come out and we'd be glad to work with you on that. mr. dold: with that, madam chair, i withdraw my bipartisan amendment in hopes we have more accurate accounting in the future. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-388. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. tonko: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-388 offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 539, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you. thank you, madam chair. i rise today to offer an amendment of h.r. 3581, the budget accounting and transparency act. my amendment restores a critical step that was skipped by my republican colleagues. you see, we never once had a hearing in the budget committee devoted specifically to exploring the main proposal contained in this bill, the use of fair value estimates to determine the cost of federal loans. if i could change that, i would, but my republican colleagues have pushed this bill to the floor. when many shake their heads at political gamesmanship that has dominated this institution, my amendment asks that we be objectably smart rather than just politically savvy about a policy decision with major repercussions. if this legislation took effect

this year, c.b.o. estimated we would see the federal deficit jump by $55 billion. this is a bill that would impact things like housing loans, student loans, small business loans and even our mortgage guaranteed programs for vets. it would create the appearance that these loans and loan guarantees cost more with an accounting method that is relatively new and certainly under debate. for a bill with transparency in its title, we're talking about using some pretty merck murky math. my colleagues will say we need c.b.o. estimates on loans to reflect the risks involved in federal lending. that makes sense, which is why we already do it. the approach under current law already reflects the risks that borrowers will default on their loans or guarantees. the real difference here is how we think the government should borrow and lend or ultimately

on how the private sector borrows and lends. i understand my colleagues have a great esteem with private sector business practices, and as a former small business owner myself, i share that admiration. but we have to understand that the federal government of the most -- is not a private actor. we have the ability to borrow at treasury rates and its ability to spread risk across a broad portfolio. there is significant debate as to how fair value estimates could be applied to government loans. the bottom line is it would involved a lot of guesswork. at a time when our housing market has been devastated, when our work force is struggling to on feign the knowledge and skillset -- to obtain the knowledge and skillset they need, when small businesses are fighting their way out of the worst recession since our great depression, and

when we're -- our vets are facing a higher unemployment rate, the impact of this legislation is too big to be treated more like an election year talking point than a major policy change. with very real impacts on people that we here represent. that is why i'm offering this modest proposal. my amendment simply promises -- proposes, rather, that we convene a commission of budget and accounting experts to provide recommendations to congress regarding the best measures to accurately account for the costs of federal credit programs. congress will then have the opportunity to vote on the commission's recommendations and if changes are deemed wise we can move forward with the smartest course of action and a policy that brings our federal loan and loan guarantee estimates into uniformity. after all, as i heard, as we heard on this very floor, it's

the people's money we're dealing with. i urge my colleagues to look before we jump on this one, and i urge you to support my amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i rise in opposition to the amendment that's before us. in essence, the amendment has the effect that so many amendments often do, they basically gut the entire bill. the core reform of this bill is to adopt for all federal credit programs fair value accounting. now, this is not a precipitous or rash decision we are making here. the budget committee, both on the republican and democrat leadership, has over time studied and worked on the implications of moving to a fair value accounting for federal credit programs. the c.b.o., we reference all the time as the independent ash tore of what is right here -- arbitor of what is right here to study these things, going back to the 1990's maybe earlier on this question as well.

there was -- there was talk there was a commission, a commission featuring 36 experts, including six former c.b.o. directors. what did they recommend? they recommended moving to a fair value accounting in 2010. it was back in 2009, this house under democrat leadership voted to require the use of fair value accounting with respect to u.s. commitments made to the i.m.f., the international monetary fund. additionally, the c.b.o. has conducted analysis of dozens of federal credit programs on a fair value basis. this bill is not precipitous or rash this bill is not extreme. this bill takes a cautious approach and applies fair value budgeting in those areas where we have the most experience while calling for a further study of those areas that it makes sense to do a studdy, federal insurance programs. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the judicious and experience-based approach of the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york and those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, -- yes. mr. tonko: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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 187. the nays are 238. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3581 and pursuant to house resolution 388 reports the bill back to the house -- 539 reports the bill back to the

house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3581 and pursuant to house resolution 539 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the committee is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 to increase transparency in federal budgeting and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i have a motion at the desk, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. wals: i have a motion at

the desk, -- mr. walz: i have a motion at the desk, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. walz: in the current form, i am. the clerk: mr. walz of minnesota moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3581 to the committee on budget with instructions to report the same back forthwith to the house -- mr. walz: mr. speaker, i ask to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. garrett: i object to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: can we dispense with the reading, without objection? mr. garrett: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to say that the goals of this legislation as the gentleman spoke before us is noble. the legislation is to improve accuracy for how we account for loan programs. that's indeed a laudable goal. as stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, it's our

responsibility to keep a careful eye on every dollar spent. that is using the most accurate accounting measures possibly. unfortunately, we have no insurances -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from minnesota may continue. mr. walz: as i was say, the intentions of this bill are laudable. the problem is there is no assurance that the piece of legislation we're doing today will code that into law. instead what we have are half-finished ideas whose merit is disputed by nonpartisan budgeting experts. we've heard that enactment of this bill could result in overestimating the cost of federal loan programs. this will not just be inaccurate accounting, it could cause significant harms to millions of americans who depend on these loans. as a school coacher and 24-year

veteran of the national guard two groups who depend on these loans more than any other are students and veterans. that's why i have at the desk a motion to amend the bill that we hole harmless students and veterans. this ealt does not kill the bill, it changes nothing in it, it simply ensures until we know how this policy is going to work out, we won't insist we make it any harder for an iraq or afghanistan veteran to get a home loan and at the same time, when economic hardships right hand rising tuition costs are making it harder for the best and brightest, those state of the unions we depend on, we need to make sure they're not harmed by this proest my amendment would ensure we hold them harmless in how this unvetted, untested piece of legislation will work. i encourage my colleagues to join me, protect students and veterans in this, go ahead an pass the bill, if that's what you want to do, but make sure

there's a firewall between those who can least afford to have this go bad. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: the amendment we voted down would have gutted the bill entirely. this motion to recommit will try to gut the bill by one third. mr. speaker, i remind us all of the words of the president of the united states when he stood in that same position, where he speaks of fairness and the -- in the agenda he proposes, he speaks of fairness to the american public. mr. speaker, we know that the budget process in this country is broken. we know there's no fairness in that.

this amendment will undercut the legislation below us and the underlying bill will try to restore it. we need fairness to the hard working american taxpayer who at the end of the day will be the one who will have to foot the bill when the loans go sour like we saw in the situation with so lindrasm we need to bring fairness to the small business owner who is already compelled to comply with the exact same requirements we have in this bill. mr. speaker, we need to bring fairness to the american public who simply wants to know where their hard working tax dollar is going. mr. speaker, in conclusion, let me just say this. as we here in washington travel through that gray twilight which is the murky area of obscure accounting rules, let us commit ourselves to one thing, that we will bring clarity, that we will bring transparency, that we will bring sunshine and most importantly, that we will bring fairness to the american public

as to their spending of their tax dollars. i recommend we vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the potion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. walz: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. lech lecked. -- members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190. the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has requested a recorded vote. 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 will be 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 245. the nays are 180. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report for the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 540, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3521, to amend the congressional budget and impoundment control act of

1974, to provide for a legislative line item veto to expedite consideration of recisions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, under rule 22, clause 7-c, i hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on h.r. 3630, the conference report to extend the payroll tax, unemployment insurance and s.g.r. payments for doctors. i move that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendments to the bill h.r. 3630 be instructed to file a conference report not later than february 17, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: notice will appear in the record. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2606, as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2606, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in the gateway national recreation area, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 65 , an act to

amend title 49, united states code torque authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste and improve aviation safety and capacity torque provide stable funding for the national aviation system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, religious civil liberty is the bedrock of a free people. but today we face an unprecedented and unconstitutional act of aggression against our religious liberties sponsored by the u.s. ghovement

president's health care edict forces catholic organizations to choose between violating their religious faith or not furnishing their employees with health care. no government has the right to cause a person to violate their religious conviction. the constitution prevents this type of action. that's why catholics, jews, and others are united to stand up against the government's tyranny. people came to this country to avoid persecution. but people of faith will not submit to a government war against religion. the line has been drawn by the coalition of all religions. the hofede the catholic league said it best, this is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and i dare say maybe even in the streets. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i rise today to recognize lewis moore, he will be retiring this year from penn state where he most recently served as professor ofing a cull chuffer economics. he's been at the forefront of promoting agriculture. in 1955, he began his work as a marketing agent in northwest pennsylvania and later for the entire commonwealth. in 1973, he joined penn state

as professor of agriculture economics where he helped expand beyond pennsylvania, working with foreign ministries of agriculture, farmers, universitys,ing ary piss in countries arn the world. his cricks to the field of agriculture stand as a beacon to our state and our nation. congratulations, professor moore. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to recognize nine students from arkansas' first district, awe that i have the honor to nominate to the u.s. service academy. not only are they brilliant students, i have this given -- they have given much to their community.

s weton white was elected lieutenant governor of boys state and is active in fbla. sully biggert is on track team, clayton carpenter lettered in baseball and football and was an academic all-conference player. aren't robert is a cadet in the naval junior r.o.t.c. drune morgan is a two-time all conference selection in football. shaun ga vin is a cadet lieutenant and logistics commander. jack talks is an active church member, daniel payne was selected for the american christian honor society an serves on the student council. these young men are proof that america's greatest generation is not just a thing of the past. with each new generation, the national spirit is renewed. it is an honor to recognize these young men who embody the

ideals of the country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: it's an interesting thing. there are programs around here that are completely out of control and one is the department of energy loan guarantee program that our energy and commerce committee has been investigating for the past year. i was thinking about an old country song when we were talking thabt program today. it is, when you're in a hole, stop digging. that is certainly what applied to the department of energy loan guarantee program. that is what d.o.e. needs to do. we are seeking information to figure out exactly what has happened with taxpayer money. everybody has heard about so lind rah. everybody know -- sew lind rah, everybody knows how that has run off the rails. now we have a company that's received federal loan guarantees trying to renegotiate their terms of

their initial loan and guess what, now we find out that they are laying off employees, 20 employees and ho contractors, yet again, another department of energy loan guarantee program under the watch of secretary chu is having difficulties in federal taxpayer money -- and federal taxpayer money is being wasted. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to hon nor the life of al larson a minnesota world war ii veteran who served the bataan death march he passed away last month at the aim of 93. despite experiencing one of the worst aspects of the war, he kept his faith in the lord. during his time as a prisoner

of war, he read the book of psalms and the new testments, which he kept hidden. he re-enhiist -- listed in the air force and six years later went back to his hometown and raised six children he insisted he was just a regular guy, doing his duet he said, quote, i'm not a hero, i was just doing my job. last week, minnesota and our nation lost one of our greatest heroes. to alf and the other veterans who serve our country, i thank you for your sacrifice and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

ms. jackson lee: i do want to acknowledge today the honoring or recognition of national black hiv-aids day and acknowledging the work that many organizations have done to stop the devastation of hiv-aids in certain populations and i will submit a statement into the record extensively acknowledging the work that's been accomplished. but i rise today to address very important international issue that appears to be politicized by those running for president. -- in the republican primary. first of all, we should all be concerned by americans who are being held by ally egypt and we should be concerned for the safe passage of those americans as quickly as possible. but it is ridiculous to

associate this incident, the taking of hostages in iran, some decades ago, but of course where there is a foolery, there is opportunity, i call upon egyptian americans to work with this administration to stop the holding of american citizens and to have them released immediately and i will continue pressing for this as the weeks and days go on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. are there further requests for one-minute speechs? under the speaker's announced spoifl january 5, 2011, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunlly, is recognized for 60 -- mr. nunnelee is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. today goings the observation of -- begins the observation of national marriage week a week

that begins today, february 7, will go through valentine's day, february 14 of next week. in fact, around the nation, in fact, around the world, there are those organizations, individuals, that will be conducting events around national marriage week. i think it's all too fitting and proper that we take this hour on the floor of the house of representatives to recognize the importance of marriage, the importance of home. and so, tonight, we will be having a series of speeches that will reflect the importance of marriage, of the home, and also recognize national marriage week. mr. speaker, for the first of those speeches, i would like to recognize my friend, my colleague, from mississippi, mr. harper. mr. harper: thank you, mr.

speaker. congressman nunnelee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in behalf of national marriage week. what a special time that is to us and i will also say, what an inspiration you and your wife are to my wife and myself on the way that you live that marriage. as we look and we see how our society is today and the prevalence of divorce, the breakdown of the family, i think it's very fitting that we talk for a moment about the importance of marriage and what it means in our lives and while it is not attainable for some family situations or some situations, it should always be our goal to keep the family unit together and hold that bedrock of our society together. my experience with marriage came from watching my mom and dad, you know, my dad was a

gunner in a b-17 in world war ii. he came right after world war ii to columbus air force base which is in congressman nunnelee's district, and met my mother at a dance when she came down from lackey, mitches, outside aberdeen. from that point forward, my dad decided he would move his allegiance from oklahoma to the state of mississippi. i watched that marriage through my life and while no marriage is always completely easy or trouble-free, you know, they stuck together through thick and thin. and i know for us, my dad, my late father, being a petroleum engineer, we transferred quite often from kindergarten through the 12th grade, i was in 10 different schools in four different states and we

actually spent another summer in a fifth state. but mississippi was always home. and that bond that we had was very special because as long as mom and dad and my brother and i were together, it was -- there was that protection that safety that came from that and how i watched them as they handled things that came up in their lives, inspired me. and then that last move that we had from the state of california, back to mississippi, i wound up in a high school in the 10th grade with a great friend of mine whose conduct in his -- and his behavior indirectly led me to accept jesus christ as my savior at the enof my 10th grade year. he got me going to his church and it was there that i spott