positive step towards combating the run away spending that's characterized not only this republican congress, but prior congresses controlled by both parties. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to thank the gentleman for his kind words about the underlying bill. i say with the utmost sincerity that here in my freshman term in congress, one of the members that i have enjoyed working with the most, is mr. polis. you can always count on him in the rules committeele to say something unexpected. you can't pigeonhole him as to where he's going to be on things because he's thoughtful about all the issues and i think -- hope he would find that to be one of the highest compliments we could pay to a member to find a thoughtful member here in this body. it's been my pleasure to work with him. . i agree with him that we can't pretend the deficit away. we can't use whacky numbers, i think was his word, to wish the

deficit away. but we do have a difference of opinion about where that pretending comes from and where the whacky numbers come from. as a member of the budget committee, i will tell you that the steps we're taking this year are changing a historical process of pretending the deficit away. bringing in real accounting. changing the historical process of whacking numbers and bringing in new, honest accounting. but i also want to say this, madam speaker. as folks come to the floor to talk about whether or not we're actually saving any money today, whether we're cutting the budget today, whether we're creating jobs today, this is a budget committee bill. as a member of the budget committee, i wish it was in my authority to cut spending and create jobs because by golly i got to tell you i could do it. bring billser to to the floor on a regular basis to promote those ideas. but it's not within the budget committee's authority. what it's in the budget committee's authority to do is

craft the most honest numbers possible to share with the american people to describe what it is that we're doing with their tax dollars day in and day out. that's exactly what this legislation is designed to do, that's exactly what the other nine pieces of budget reform legislation that the budget committee is moving, what they are designed to do. and it is really with great pride, again, as a new member to the budget committee to have my colleague from colorado say such nice things about this bipartisan work, about the hope that this presents for us moving forward and i too hope we'll be able to build on that progress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the house votes on the political intelligence provisions that are included in the stock act

written by ms. slaughter and mr. walz as a standalone bill. this bill will help shine sunlight onto political intelligence firms and require that they register as lobbyists. this provision already has the support of a majority of members of this body, 285 members including 99 republicans. the fact that the republican leadership has weakened and watered down the stock act by stripping out this provision will be consider -- we'll be considering this week is both shameful and wrong. it's clear that this house needs to act and it will be my hope that we defeat the previous question and i'm able to offer this amendment. i'm honored to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the rules committee and the sponsor of the stock act, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my gentleman, my friend, my colleague for yielding to me. and today, this is terribly important to me, i've spent six years of my life on this bill. so bear with me, if i get a

little emotional. today i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can strengthen the stock act bill that has been weakened by house republican leadership behind closed doors and in the dark of night. we're writing our own version of the stock act which the republican leadership did not consult, the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill. and over the week neither i nor mr. waleds were asked to contribute to the -- walz were asked to contribute to the product nor was our leader consulted in any way. despite championing the bill for six years, i was left completely out. as a matter of fact, the way the bill is structured i won't even have an opportunity to offer an amendment, to put back the political intelligence piece which i think is really the heart of the bill. the bill has changed from a bill to a suspension which means the minority will have neither the right of a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend this bill in any way. that contrasts completely with

what happened over in the senate when members of the senate were allowed to present amendments to this bill and many of them did it successfully. but what we got here was a flawed bill last night and legislation earlier today, as a matter of fact, the bill they put out last night has already been superseded by one 45 minutes ago which shows you that if you write something in the dark of night you may not know what you wrote. despite the many changes the bill is weaker, not stronger, than before. the simple truth is that the bill introduced by house republicans waters down government reform. particularly when it comes to regulating the political intelligence industry. political intelligence is the latest theme to profit from the halls of congress. the industry profits to the tune of $400 million annually and that's all we know of that group considerably this week from the information we had previously so we don't even know what it is

but this is at least almost a half billion dollars a year. they gain valuable information and they sell that information to their high-paying wall street clients. none of my constituents are able to do anything like that. they have no prior information and they expect their congress to do much decent -- with more integrity than to be doing that. but like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operators use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. unlike the lobbyists, they are nameless. under the current law they're not required to identify themselves as they go about their work. completely unregulated. americans know all too well what happens when the congress and k-street meet in the dark. in fact, abram of a to tom delay, -- abramoff to tom delay. but with the stock act we have a chance to be proactive and simply require them to register

as a lobbyist so we know who they are. this is not a radical idea. but over the last week the outcry from k-street has been deafening. soon after they rang the alarm, the house republican leadership locked themselves behind closed doors where they reworked my original legislation and removed the language that regulated the political intelligence community. we're now set to consider a bill for the commission to study on political intelligence, hardly the type of action that will restore america's faith in this institution. did house republican leadership return to their abramoff leadership ways? we will never know. because we don't know who they are and what they're doing. but we know that they're doing something. what we do know is regulation critical intelligence community was supported by 285 members of congress who would co-sponsors of our original bill, including 99 republicans to which we are

extremely grateful in a bipartisan supermajority in the senate. the bill, as you know, passed over there 96-3. what we do know is that after emerging from behind the closed doors, the bill introduced by mr. cantor does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community. the house leadership should have allowed this bill to be finalized in an open and transparent manner. it's that important. america is watching. i have never seen the editorial support of the outpouring of support like we have had on this measure. people want us to be doing this. it is really beyond my kin that we are doing this at such a hidden and weak way. but if this has been allowed to come to the floor, i'm confident that my 285 colleagues who supported the original stock act would have passed the tough regulations for political intelligence community. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. polis: i'd be happy to yield an additional minute to the gentlelady from new york.

ms. slaughter: thank you. the majority continued their my way or the highway approach. they made bipartisan changes to a bipartisan bill. as a result a bipartisan coalition in the house is left one option. to re-introduce our political -- to reintroduce our political challenges by repeating the previous question or putting main street before k-street starts here. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, reinsert language to regulate a growing k-street industry and make the stock act as strong as it was when i introduced it six years ago. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. to say that i appreciate the gentlelady's work. i know that her effort on the stock act comes from the heart. i disagree with a lot of the underlying crafting of that bill, but i know that the effort is to solve a very real problem and to solve it in a very, very genuine way and i'm grateful to

her for that. at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to one of my freshman colleagues who also comes to this issue with a pure heart, who has an alternative proposal here in the house to prevent insider trading, that i'm a strong supporter of, and he's also my colleague, seatmate in the rules committee. that's the gentleman from florida, sheriff nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for such time as he may use. mr. nugent: madam speaker, thank you so very much. i also want to thank my very good friend from the great state of georgia, mr. woodall. as he mentioned, we both sit on the rules committee. and so today i rise in support of h.res. 540, the issue we're talking about is not whether or not the american people can trust us. today, you know, congress has a job approval rating of what? 10%, 12%? the american people are pretty sick of us and i don't blame them. you know, ms. slaughter has been

working on the stock act bill for over six years and commendable. it's unfortunate it never came to the democratic congress when they had control. that's very unfortunate that she was never able to move it forward. but if anything we're amazed as we move forward here, that 13% of folks actually approve of the work we're doing here. i can't believe there's even 1%. it was only about a year ago, though, i was one of those people that was disappointed in this body but my parents always taught me that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. so sure enough i ran for congress and the people of florida's fifth congressional district, and they put their trust in me to get here and to represent them. i promised folks back home that was never going to use my service in the house of representatives to enrich myself and that's why i turned down a congressional house -- the

congressional health benefits, that is that's why i introduced my bill, h.r. 981, congress is not a quitter act, so i could turn down the congressional pension that i'm legally required to take. that's why i think that trading of any kind on insider knowledge received through the virtue of working in this office is flat-out down right wrong. and anybody who uses their office to get rich in the game markets should go to jail. it's that simple. madam speaker, i put people in jail for doing things that were illegal. madam speaker, sometimes i wonder if folks right here in this very chamber forget about what we're talking about. we're talking about the united states congress. we're talking about an institution ma makes up the first -- that makes up the first branch of government. we're talking about the people's branch. we're talking about an institution where men like madison, monroe, john quincy adams, j.f.k. and george h.w. bush all served at one point or another here in their careers.

this is an institution that ought to be held to the highest standards, an institution that i at least expect more from and we're failing. we're failing our constituents, we're failing ourselves and we're just outrate failing -- outright failing. what we need to do now is take deliberate steps toward making things better. we need to prove to the american people that we hear them and that they're right and that we're going to do better. one major step in the right direction would be showing our commitment to ethics reform and ensuring that we are using congress -- aren't using congress as way to line our own pockets. as "the tampa bay times" wrote in an editorial just this morning, the united states congress finally has to address the public office for individual financial gain. house res. 540 lets us bring that discussion to the floor of the house of representatives where it belongs. i've gotten up here, madam speaker, and spent a lot of time

talking about honesty, doing better so, here's my opportunity to be honest with everyone here and everybody watching us at home. if it were up to me we wouldn't be voting on this bill that will be voted on tomorrow. as i see it, the stock act will be vote ed on tomorrow has some problems. transparency and openness mean that we'll be able to look at all these problems and really think about the benefits if they outweigh the costs. and it means we'll be able to have a full and knowledgeable discussion about the stock act on the floor of this house tomorrow. i've got to tell you, the process that got us to where we are today and where we're going tomorrow is just wrong. 38 pages isn't a long bill in congressional speak but it's 38 pages that never went through the normal legislative process. it's 38 pages that didn't get an opportunity to amend and since i'm being honest, there are better alternatives out there

than the stock act. than what we're going to be voting on tomorrow. one of those options is my bill, h.r. 3639, the prevent insider trading by elected officials act . madam speaker, my bill's only 1 1/2 pages long. 1 1/2 pages. it's quick, it's easy and to the point and all elected officials, both in the legislative branch, the executive branch, are required to put their stocks, bonds, securities, whatever you have into a blind trust. it's just that simple. . you don't know what you have, you can't trade on it based on insider knowledge. that's what blind trust is about. 1 1/2 pages. no room for loopholes. legislation up here is written by attorneys that sometimes only attorneys can understand. and there's loopholes in all of this. if i had my way we would be having a discussion not about honest services provisions,

i.p.o. sales, disclosures and what not online, but that's not my call. so we're here today and at least we've gotten this far. i wish we were doing more. this is the united states congress we are talking about. when i was growing up it was supposed to mean something, and i'm hoping it still does. i'm afraid, and if it does then we need to be holding ourselves to the highest of standards. the american people ought to know that they can have faith in the people who are serving them here in washington. so do i think this is the very best step? no, i don't. do i think it's better than the united states senate sent to us through that rushed process, is bill that has conflicting provisions and its core doesn't in fact address the problem that the american people want fixed? no doubt about it. i wish the senate hadn't rushed the stock act. i suspect harry reid just really needed a shiny object he

could wave and point to hoping he could distract the american people long enough to forget that it's been over 1,000 days since the united states senate passed a budget. he's already promised they won't have one for this next year. if not for the rush then we probably wouldn't be forced in this break neck speed. that's why i'm going to support this rule. i'm being honest. i wish we did it differently, but we're here to work the will of the people, and that's the most important thing right now. again, i want to thank you, madam speaker, and i want to thank my friend, mr. woodall, for the time. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have to say after hearing my colleague from florida, i'm a little bit confused about where he stands. certainly his arguments were

many of the same arguments i have been making and others. in fact, ranking member slaughter proposed in committee yesterday to strike suspension authority, specifically so, the gentleman from florida could offer his florida as an amendment to the bill so we could have a discussion about this blind trust issue. i think that would have been a better way to bring it to the floor, yet, the gentleman from florida voted no yesterday to the provision he's effectively trying to argue for on the floor today. he concluded his remarks by confirming that he plans to vote for a rule that fundamentally doesn't allow him to do what he thinks needs to be done to restore ethics and integrity to this body. this is the type of contradictions that we're hearing. but i would urge the gentleman to be convinced by his own arguments so he might join me in opposing the previous question and opposing the rule.

it's my privilege to yield to the original author of the stock act, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: as the american people watch us here, the gentleman from florida is right, the frustration levels is as high as it's been. you know, it would be a lot easier if we didn't have to go through this. some of my constituents say, there is too many of you. name a king and we don't have do a back thing, -- have to do a dang thing. our children will inherit this place and the things that happen here. the integrity of this institution stands above all else. that's when i walk through this door coming out of a classroom in man keetkito, minnesota, i

was approached by louise slaughter saying, you were here to make this case and introduced this bill. it's not perfect. as one of our former colleagues, dave obey, used to say is, of course it's not perfect. you'll get perfect in heaven and this place is a lot closer than hell. let's compromise. let's get something done for the american public that restores our trust. let's care for our veterans, educate our children and secure our nation. louise slaughter has been there every step of the way. this was not a 12th hour come back to the righteousness thing. louise has lived this way. when she says this issue of political intelligence and gathering here is undermining our markets and our trust, show knows something about it. so i for one, we're going to make a compromise.

we are going to move a piece of legislation forward that is a step on a journey, not a destination. it is the quest towards a more perfect union. this is one small step. this is the only place in the world where doing something right let's us pat ourselves on the back. this is what the american people do every day. but this offering of adding this piece is all part of the bigger puzzle. i am in full support. i am proud to serve with the gentlelady from new york. she has been a champion, and it's not about our political differences and i thank all the members here who spoke eloquently about restoring faith in this. the public wants us to come here and debate differences for the direction of our country. they don't want us to tear each other down and they don't want us to game the system. with that i thank the gentlelady and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my friend for his kind comments. i know that mr. walz and ms. slaughter have been working for

years and years on this proposal. yet, i have some issues with this proposal. i believe there are some better options out there. but i must speak up on behalf of the leadership in this house for congress after congress after congress, ms. slaughter labored to bring this bill to the floor. labored to bring this bill to the floor with -- to no avail. to no avail. through four years of democraticcally controlled congresses, folks who have the deepest respect anded a mir mationation for the -- admiration for the gentlelady and her legislation, failed to bring this legislation to the floor. and the rule we have here today does, does. it's not the only way to bring this legislation to the floor. it's not even a requirement that the legislation come to the floor in this way, but what it does do, what this rule does

is provide the first opportunity that this congress has had to vote on the stock act. madam speaker, that's not a topic for the national -- nation. it's for the clapping of the hands. if you believe in this bill, if you believe mr. walz this is not the end all, be all, if we can move a little today, a little tomorrow, ultimately to be where we need, this is a step in the right direction. now, as a member of the budget committee, madam speaker, it happens to be my privilege that that opportunity was attached to the bottom of a budget rule because the truth is the reason we're here today is not to talk about the stock act and not to talk about ethics reform but to talk about budget process reform. budget process reform that was reported out of the budget committee in a bipartisan way, budget process reform that was

sponsored by both the republican chairman of the budget committee and the democratic ranking member of the budget committee, budget process reform that makes sure that every little piece of the united states budget, every topic in our appropriations bill doesn't just get examined in committee, doesn't just get examined on the house floor, doesn't just get examined at the white house but gets examined one more time for those things that just don't pass the smell test by coming back to this body for an up or down vote on that rescission. i would inquire of my friend from colorado if he has any speakers remaining. does the gentleman have any speakers remaining? mr. polis: yes, i do. i have one speaker remaining. mr. woodall: then i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes.

ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent, madam speaker, to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i'm always in awe at the gentleman from the rules committee that has just spoken so eloquently about consensus and coming together. i've seen him in action in the rules committee and certainly thank the members of the rules committee for their service. we know that his history brings him here from being a staffer and so he knows this institution, he knows where all the bathrooms are, he knows where all of how much good we can do. and so i'm grateful of his acknowledging our friend, congresswoman slaughter, mr. walz who have been working and, of course, wanted to have their bill come forward in a way that would be transparent, would have the opportunity for all

facets of this bill to be understood. and so it begs the question, i thank mr. polis for his leadership, how we have the cloak and dagger, midnight legislation trick that really is not befitting of this carefully drawn initiative. let me share with my colleagues why i am so concerned about good work that should be presented as good work. just a moment we are trying to make sure that no one has insider trading, and if we had a sledgehammer here we'd go around and make sure that we'd stamp it out but we're doing it by legislation but we can't do it by legislation and half fix it. we can't half represent to our colleagues and the american people. right now the language that was in the slaughter bill dealing with political intelligence tirms that have grown draw matcally over the last few decades and now are $100

million industry and are sharing moneys and resources and information, intel with wall street every single day and investors who are unfairly profiting at the benefit or the loss of the american people. some other -- mr. polis: i yield 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: some mother somewhere -- can i have one minute? mr. polis: i yield a total of one minute to the gentlewoman. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. some single mother, some hardworking parents are being taken advantage of because they, our friends on the other side, have taken language out that would deal with the transferring of political intelligence by political insiders. we need to be able to vote no on the previous question to allow this language to come up and it's a closed rule and it's by suspension. for those of you that know that, nobody gets a chance to do anything. it's a supermajority.

then to add insult to injury, they have an expedited veto bill in here that would take away the powers of the three branches of government, slam the congress that should be here doing its work. that's what you asked us to come here to do and allow this expedited veto to go forward and to undermine the give and take the three branches of government which is what the constitution asks us to do. i'd ask us to vote no on turning the lights out and using dagger politics to keep the american people from knowing what is going on. i ask for a no for this vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i'd inquire of my friend if he has any speakers remaining. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. mr. woodall: aim' prepared to clowe -- i'm prepared to close as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the remainder of the time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. the expedited line-item veto and recisions act is a fiscally sound way for the congress and the president to reduce wasteful government spending and ensure that american taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. this legislation will help in a small way to address our budget crisis. again, i want to be clear that the expedited line-item veto and recisions act does not solve our deficit, does not restore fiscal discipline and fiscal integrity to our country but is the step in the right direction that will produce savings that will all be applied to deficit reduction under this bill. the bill is a balanced measure and i know there is some support and opposition from both sides of the aisle. i encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this small but important step forward. the country's budget situation is dire. the supercommittee's failure and the threat of sequestration

underscores the need to address our fiscal policies head on. the worst possible outcome is we pat ourselves on the back and say job well done while this country faces record deficits of trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. we need a big and balanced budget compromise to reduce our nation's debt. passing the bipartisan expedited line-item veto and recisions act will be a small step and keep us on track to help restore fiscal integrity to our country, but we need to remind ourselves that it is only a small first step towards addressing our budget problem. i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to extends the middle class tax cut, to reach a big, bold and balanced solution to our federal budget situation, along the lines with the president's commission, and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text and the previous question in the record along with extraneous material and urge my colleagues to vote no

and defeat the previous question , a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: it really is a source of pride for me as a budget committee member to be a part of this. this is an effort much like the stock act that did not begin in this congress. the expedited line-item veto is an effort that has been going on for almost two decades here in this body. and previous attempts, madam speaker, i would argue were in fact an unconstitutional delegation of our responsibility here in the house to legislate delegating that responsibility to the president. this underlying bill, however, looks less like a line-item veto and more like an expedited rescission. rescission authority that the president already has today but

ensures that when that rescission is presented it actually gets a vote here on the house floor. if these were wonderful economic times, madam speaker, i don't know if i'd be as enthusiastic about this legislation. but these are dire economic times. our budget challenges here have grown exponentially in my lifetime and i think we must pull out every single stop that we can to make the situation better. whether a little or whether a lot, every single opportunity we must seize and this is one of those and i so appreciate again the work of chairman ryan and ranking member van hollen in bringing this forward. but i would be remiss, madam speaker, if given all the talk about the stock act today i didn't speak up just a little on behalf of my colleagues. i've served now 13 months as a member of congress.

i see good and decent hardworking men and women trying to do the very best that they can for their nation. i see men and women from different parts of the country whose constituencies have different hopes and dreams. and those members coming here to advocate for those hopes and dreams as best that they can. and i see a population back home that has lost all faith in those good men and women here in this body. and i wonder what we do here in this body to perpetuate that stereotype. you know, the stock act, madam speaker, has been characterized as the prevent insider trading by members of congress, as if, as if members of congress are allowed to participate in insider trader today. and they are not.

insider trading was against the law yesterday, it was against the law a week ago, it was against the law a year ago, and it will still be against the law tomorrow. do not let your constituents, madam speaker, believe for a minute that you have the right to insider trading when they don't. the laws of the land apply to us as well and we owe it to this institution and we owe it to our constituents back home to tell them they are not being represented by a bunch of thieves and scoundrels but they are being represented by their neighbors. can we do even more? must we do even more? we must. 38 pages in the stock act of new criminal regulations, new sanctions. if you got fraud last week, you're going to go to prison for a number of years. folks don't get bribed.

it was wrong yesterday, wrong tomorrow. it's not more wrong because we're deciding that here today. we have a responsibility to do the job that we have been entrusted to do and we must punish the bad actors in this body. but we cannot let our constituents back home believe that this body cannot be saved. we cannot, without our constituent -- we cannot let our constituents back home believe that our body is being operated by folks who breach the public trust. we do america a disservice, madam speaker, when we allow that contention to go unchallenged. are there bad apples here in this congress? i don't know if they're here today, i know they've been here in years past, and we've sent those folks to prison. there are bad apples in my church. we've sent those folks to prison, too. this body is only as good as the

american voter back home and i tell you, madam speaker, if your district is like my district, pardon me, the american voter back home is spectacular. the american voter back home is a man or woman of integrity, the american voter back home is a person with hopes and dreams for a better america tomorrow than we have today. we can deliver that. on their behalf. we are the voice of those hopes and dreams in this body. the kind of bipartisan work that we've done on the line-item veto , the rescission act, i say that's exemplary. my colleague who chuckles, madam speaker, has been here longer than i. been here longer than i. i don't believe he's beyond saving, though, i think we can convince him that it's not a laughable matter to work together, that it's actually something folks do and i'm optimistic to be the carrier of that message today and tomorrow, madam speaker. with that let me again urge

strong support for the rule, the rule both allows the expedited line-item veto bill to come to the floor as well as provides an opportunity for the very first time, a vote on the stock act here in this body. i rise in strong support of that rule, strong support of the underlooing provision, i thank -- underlying provision. i thank the speaker for her presiding today and yielding back the balance of my time, i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question

of adoption. [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 240. the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. -- so many as are in favor say aye. those in favor will vote aye. -- those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a rule by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 175. the resolution is agreed to. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise.

mr. ryan: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 3521, the expedited legislative line-item veto and rescissions act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 540 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3521. the chair appoints the gentleman from california, mr. denham, 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 the consideration of h.r. 3521 which the clerk will report by the title. the clerk: a bill to amend the congressional budget and empowerment control act of 1974 to provide for a legislative line-item veto to expedite consideration of rescissions, and for other purposes. the chair: the committee will be in order. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. jem debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on budget and the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, and the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, each control 20 minutes. the house will be in order.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i want to begin by thanking my friend, chris van hollen, the ranking member of the budget committee. this is a collaborative effort, it's a bipartisan effort. it's not that often we have a chance to do this. mr. chairman, let me begin by saying i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. ryan: i want to first say i want to thank the gentleman from maryland, for his collaborative effort. we believe whenever we can find the opportunity to reach across the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion to go after wasteful spending, we should do that. that's what this effort's all about. i also want to thank some of our staff who put a lot of -- mr. chairman -- the chair: the house will be in order. the gentleman from wisconsin may proceed. mr. ryan: i also want to thank

the staffer who put a lot of work in this. paul, nicole and john on the majority side. i want to thank tom, gale, and ellen for their hard work on the minority side. chairman dreier at the rules committee. congressman hensarling who has been one of the forefathers of this effort. what this does it is the expedited line-item veto and enhance revisions. this bill is constitutional and i want to explain to members why. the 1996 line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it delegated power to the executive branch, legislative power. this does not do that. this is quite the opposite. this simply says after an appropriations bill has been passed within a short period of time the president can send up a new rescissions proposal to the house and senate to consider rescinding spending from that bill and we have to simply have the votes. we can't hide from the vote, duck from the vote. we have to have the vote. here's why we are doing this,

mr. chairman. lots of bills from both parties over the years have had so many miscellaneous provisions stuffed into them without seeing the light of day. whether they even pass the house and senate or not. and we have to sign the -- the president has to sign the whole bill or nothing at all. this gives us the ability to bull those miscellaneous provisions out, send them back to congress, and have them vote on this many on their individual merits. we believe what this will do will make every member of congress think twice before trying to assert sometimes we call them airdrops, earmarks, pork, whatever you want to call it, we ought to have members of congress think twice they might have to justify this he provision, this spending bill on the merits by a stand alone vote of their own piers -- peers. we think that asket sunshine, transparency, accountability will help improve the integrity of the spending process here in congress. this bill is bipartisan. i yield myself 30 seconds to

simply say this bill is bipartisan, it's constitutional, and it is yet one more tool in several that we are bringing to the floor to restore trust, accountability, and transparency to the way we spend hardworking taxpayer dollars. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, paul ryan, and our staffs for working together in a cooperative and bipartisan manner on what i think is a very important piece of legislation to bring before the house. while we have deep disagreements in this house over many policy issues, i know that we all agree that we should be responsible and careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. and that's what this bill before us is all about. it creates new mechanisms for greater transparency and greater accountability in spending taxpayer dollars.

and i believe that it will over time result in a better use of those taxpayer dollars and savings identified through this process will go to deficit reduction. for those of us who believe that government can play a positive role in people's lives by creating opportunities like investing in education for our kids, like strengthening our economy through investments and infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, broadband, by making key investments in scientific research, for those of us who believe that it's especially important that taxpayers have confidence that their tax dollars are being used wisely, to the extent they don't believe that, it makes it more difficult to invest in the common good. so we should take every opportunity, every opportunity in this body to make sure those taxpayer dollars are being well spent. . now, let's be clear what this bill does and does not do.

as the chairman indicated, it does not give the executive, does not give the president unilateral line item authority. the supreme court ruled in 1996 that the line-item veto law that was passed by an earlier congress was unconstitutional because it handed over that unilateral authority to the president of the united states. i think that was the right court decision and i also think that was the right policy decision. this approach is entirely different. it's entirely different. it's different because it expressly requires congressional action before any savings, sometimes called recisions, proposed by the president can take place. it simply requires congress to consider and vote on the president's proposed savings. congress by a majority vote in each house can support the president's recommended savings or reject those savings. in the end congress has the

final say. now, i think everybody here knows, everyone knows we can do a better job in this congress to scrutinizing spending bills, and this bill provides a congress incentive to do that. let's consider how the process worked just last december with the consolidated appropriations act of 2012. that bill was over 1200 pages long and -- 1,200 pages long and included over $1 trillion in spending. mr. speaker, i have that bill right here. it was submitted to this house at 10:47 p.m. on december 15, 2011, and was voted on less than 15 hours later. no one, no one can say they have an adequate opportunity to scrutinize that spending bill. let me mention a couple of facts about that bill. it included in it nine separate appropriation bills rolled into one. of those nine bills four had

not been reviewed or voted on by the full house. the house had never had a chance to look at them or vote on them. two of them, two of them hadn't even had a vote in the appropriations committee. one of those two, the labor-h bill, not voted on in the appropriations committee. foreign ops bill, not voted on in the appropriations committee. and only one of those nine was voted in the united states senate before that last-minute decision. i want to make clear this is not a criticism of the appropriations committee. this is a criticism of the process that we had in this congress, whether you had democratic houses in control or republicans in control. and what this bill does is try and provide a small fix to that process so we have a little more scrutiny. under current law the president can already propose savings, but under current law the appropriations committee can totally ignore it.

all this does is say, let's take up those recommended savings in the light of day, let's have an up or down vote in the united states congress and, you know what, if we agree the president has identified additional savings, that will help reduce the deficit. this is a good bill, bipartisan bill and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the individual that's trying to do more to reform the appropriations process by bringing individual bills to the floor and we will get there, the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the full appropriations committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this bill. in article 1, section 9, clause 7, the u.s. constitution bestows upon congress what we now call the power of the purse , that the representatives of the people should distribute taxpayer dollars as warranted

and needed. the line-item veto would weaken that power, shifting budgetary authority to the executive branch and giving the president a power that our founding fathers did not see fit to give to him. in fact, a previous effort to provide a president a line-item veto as has been noted was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 1998. two weeks ago during his state of the union address, we heard how the president would choose to spend our precious taxpayer dollars. the line-item veto would strengthen the president's ability to give preference to his spending priorities over those of the congress and the constituents that you represent. our founding fathers had seen firsthand what an absolute authority could do when wielding too much influence, particularly over spending and

taxation and drafted our constitution accordingly, providing for checks and balances to prevent too much power from falling into the hands of the one branch of government, the executive. the framers would surely shake their heads at the idea of transferring this much authority to the executive branch. so powerful was this defense defense of the congress' role that -- was this defense of the congress' role that james madison in one of the federalist papers said the power of the purse may be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and sa lmbing utary -- salutary measure, james madison, end of quote. not only does the line-item veto fly in the face of the

constitution and our founding fathers, but also look back to congress's experience with line-item veto under president clinton. congress declared that the, quote, misuse -- that he misused that authority and overturned nearly half of his cancellations. so to summarize the line-item veto, it's a power likely to be abused and not likely to save money. in an effort to better this flawed bill, to at least improve its chances of having a tangible effect on government spending, we offered an amendment in the rules committee that would have made the bill also apply to tax benefits and runaway entitlement spending. however, that amendment was ruled out of order. the amendment wouldn't have made this bill perfect, but it would have solved the

constitution -- it would not have solved the constitutional problem but it would have at least increased the potential for achieving actual budget savings. nearly 25 years ago, mr. chairman, former c.b.o. director rudolph g. pinner famously said in reference to our budget, quote, the problem isn't the process. the problem is the problem. and mr. speaker, today's problem isn't whether or not the president can veto a budget line items, noreen is it with annual discretionary spending. -- nor is it with annual discretionary spending. the real problem today lies with exploding and unsustainable mandatory and entitlement spending which the budget committee should be addressing forth with --

forthwith. i ask for one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: we deal with a third on discretionary, most of it military. and it continues to blow up the nation's deficit and debt at these rapid rates, putting our economy and the stability of our nation at risk. i urge my colleagues, look beyond the opportunity for the easy press release to see that the line-item veto does more harm than good. we can't dismiss the fundamental tenants of the constitution and we can't pretend that it will have any effect on the nation's financial predicament. we must to the end these budgetary smoke screens to find more appropriate and effective ways to address our budget crisis and focus our efforts on mandatory entitlement spending where the real problem is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

wisconsin's recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i would say 44 state governments have line-item veto in their constitution but we are not proposing that here. we are proposing to keep the power of the purse with the legislative branch and not grant that to the executive branch. this bill does that. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from arizona, a member of the appropriations committee, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong support of this legislation. i appreciate that it's a bipartisan piece of legislation. i lose no sleep at night over whether a president of my party or the other party can take action to send a portion of a bill back and force congress to -- to send back some spending we have done here and force congress to reaffirm that. had with had that over time i think we could have saved considerable money. we have a process here that the gentleman, the chairman of the

budget committee, said in earmarking over the years. tens of thousands of earmarks have been proposed by this body, members of this body unchecked, oftentimes we would approve one bill with 6,300 earmarks in it. it would be wonderful to have a president, somebody to be able to send one of those items back and at least force us to spend -- i'm sorry, to spend additional time on that and say do we want to spend that money or not. it provides some check on this process. we need more checks, not fewer. so i, like i said, i think this is constitutional. it doesn't cede our power of the purse. it reaffirms our commitment to control spending, something we have not had much control of lately as evidence by the massive deficits we've run. so i rise in support of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, a

member of the budget committee, mississippi castor. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the bipartisan expedited line-item veto and recisions act. as a member of the budget committee and a co-sponsor, i'd like to thank chairman ryan and ranking member van holen for their work and -- van hollen for their work and cooperation. mr. chairman, i support a line-item veto because the congressional appropriations and spending oversight is broken. they're broken. almost every year appropriation bills are rolled into one massive package at the end of the year with little opportunity to review, debate or amend the provisions. that means members have little ability to eliminate a wasteful expenditure or program. this past year was a perfect example. despite the expressed desires of speaker boehner that we would have open debate and have open amendments on every appropriations bill, that did

not happen. instead, the bills were rolled into one huge package in the 11th hour, released with -- i think ranking member van hollen said, 15 hours to review, and then we were asked to have an up or down vote. we had little or no ability to amend the bill. that's not how it's supposed to work. the congress must endeavor to effectively exercise its responsibilities and scrutinize every appropriation and be able to debate and amend expenditures. the log rolling of appropriations bills that have become common practice undermines confidence in government and permits wasteful spending to squeak through. under this bipartisan line-item veto bill, we will establish a new layer of accountability in the budget process. every president, whether democrat or republican, will have a new critical look at a spending provision, a potential

veto or veto of that provision, but then it will come back to the congress and we can debate it and vote on it in the light of day up or down. mr. chairman, so far this congressional session has been described as a particularly difficult one, and it was highlighted by difficult debates of last year and then we ended the year with a big appropriations package we were asked to vote on at the last minute with no ability to amend it. so i have to say it is refreshing that we can bring a bipartisan bill to the floor of the house that we agree on, reform with a line-item veto bill today, hopefully the stock act tomorrow. i urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan line-item veto bill and demonstrate to the american public that the congress can work again. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from idaho is recognized.

mr. simpson: i yield two minutes, the former chairman of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from california, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i very much appreciate my chairman yielding. i am very hesitant to oppose my friend from the budget committee. he's been wrong in this subject area before. . the line-item veto that the supreme court essentially setaside was an illustration that we are in dangerous ground when we presume as the legislative branch, the people's house, that we are going to do something worthwhile in the process to exceed our authority and constitutional responsibility to the administration. any administration. whether it be democrat or republican. in the last go-round preceding the court setting it aside, the administration had vetoed a number of items. indeed about 80% were sponsored on one side of the aisle versus

the other. essentially partisanizing that piece of the appropriations process. one way or another this body's got to get away from those partisan extremes. in this case you are going to have a bureaucrat at the third level within the administration deciding there is an item there we don't agree with so let's send it back for very special attention, taking up the time of the congress and essentially undermining the work of the congress. our responsibility within our subcommittees, within the appropriations committee, and the full house is to legislate. theirs is to review that which we direct them to do not to either setaside or veto that work. for that reason i strongly oppose the proposal by the budget committee chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. ryan: i would simply say the same majority that produces the appropriations bill can reject any rescission request by the president in the same majority. with that i yield a minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, member of the budget committee,

mr. ribble. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, van hollen, for bringing this very important piece of legislation. spending has run rampant in washington, and it's because no is not a word that congress is used to when it comes to spending. for too long members have been able to take advantage of a system, spent money on projects that have proven unnecessary and frivolous. there are far too many examples to share today, but the fact is that needless projects are squandering millions of dollars at a time when our country is facing a record $15 trillion debt. it's time to start changing the way congress budgets and spends taxpayer money. and the line-item veto is a positive step. i would contend to you it's not that we have too little -- it's not that we have too much oversight. it may be that we have too little oversight. but allowing the president to target unjustified spending and send it whack to the -- back to the congress for the vote will increase accountability and make

members think twice before they commit hardworking taxpayer dollars on some special interest project. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation and a sponsor of my own bianal budgeting bill which will help fix washington's broken budget process. the time for change is now because if we don't strive to fundamentally fix this problem, not just some pretend fix, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay the price. you are i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from vermont who spent a lot of time focusing on budget issues, mr. welch. mr. welch: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: thank you. there's two constitutional principles, there's one practical problem, and there's one democratic ideal. the most important constitutional principle is the power of the purse that must be retained by congress.

no one could give a better affirmation of why that's important than the chairman of the appropriations committee except for the author of the federalist paper that the gentleman quoted. does this violate congress' power of the purse? it reserves to the congress the right to overturn by majority vote a recommendation by the executive that focuses on a single item of spending. now, that may make life somewhat more difficult for those of us in congress. it may make it particularly more difficult for the appropriators who will have to deal with the incredible complexities of a large and multifaceted federal budget, but mind you it does not in any way violate the constitutional right that this house has over the power of the purse. the second constitutional provision is the right of the

executive to exercise a veto. and that is part of the checks and balances where the executive, republican or democratic president, is given the power to say no. and then it imposes on us a burden of coming up with 2/3 votes in order to overcome that. a veto is not a practical tool if the effect of that veto is a budget that keeps government going, that pays for our troops, that pays doctors who are providing medicare services, that everything goes down with the ship and we are forcing the president to make what in fact is a radical decision to tear the whole thing down or let some suspect things go. the practical problem we have is the budget. and again mr. rogers is right. process reform's not going to get us where we need to be, from where we are to where we need to be. the problem is the problem. but this is one budget reform that can't help because what it

does ultimately lead to is the application of that great democratic principle of transparency. what this means is that if you or i voted for a budget and the president highlighted a few items that the president said, hey, what's going on, we would have to stand up here, you and i, and vote yes or no and then be able to defend that vote to the people who elected us. one of the challenges that i think we all know we have is that the confidence that people have in this institution is very low. so anything we can do in transparency -- and transparency is the way to do something quite effective, we should do. so this simply means that at the end of the day these budget bills that are complicated, that are big, that few members really have an opportunity to review, when the president reviews them and identifies a few things that he wants to send back, we have

to say yes or no in the full light of day. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota member of the appropriations committee and budget committee. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank the chair. i respect the bipartisan efforts with my colleagues on the budget committee. but i oppose passage of h.r. 3521. ms. mccollum: this bill grants the executive branch more power and will do little to reduce our deficit. make no mistake, this bill sacrifices congressional authority. if h.r. 3521 was a serious effort to reduce our deficit, it would address the hundreds of billions of dollars we currently spend through our tax code. in fiscal year 2010 tax expen can i tures constituted a bigger

part of our budget than social security, medicare, medicaid, and the national defense. tax expenditures were twice as large as all nondiscretionary spending combined. with the federal budget on an unsustainable path, our country's fiscal problems need to be addressed in a way that's both effective and equitable. scaling back and reforming tax expenditures must be an important part of the effort. the bipartisan simpson-bowles report explained that the spending in the tax code costs over $1 trillion every year. they call these tax earmarks. why? because they are special tax breaks granted to special taxpayers. tax expenditures are not periodically reviewed and unlike the budgets of individual federal government departments and agencies, which are set by congress and annually reviewed through the appropriation process, special interest earmarks allotted contribute directly to deficit spending.

a report by the joint committee on taxation says, and i quote from it, tax expenditures may be considered to be analagous to direct outlay programs. and the two can be considered as alternative means of accomplishing similar budget policy objectives. very few members know what's hidden in our tax code because it's not subject to annual scrutiny like the budget. special interest spending in our tax code does not deserve more protection in the budget process than public interest appropriation that support our local communities, our police and fire departments, and our schools. the -- with that i would urge colleagues to vote this bill down. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to simply say what we are trying to do here is add another layer of transparency and accountability. when an appropriation bill comes to the floor, under this majority, it comes under an open rule. that means any member can open it up to amendment and we can

have those up or down votes on individual items under consideration in this bill. but what happens after that moment, after a bill has passed the house and senate, and then it's conferenced, a bill comes to the floor, up or down, take it or leave it. lots of things go into those bills in those moments between house and senate passage and final conference report passage. this simply -- yielding myself 10 seconds to say, this simply gives us that extra layer of accountability so we can still consider individual items and all we have to do if we don't approve of them is not pass them. we decide. with that i yield a minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: thank you. i have the honor to be part of the republican congress that produced the first balanced budget in nearly 30 years. part of that effort included the president line-item veto authority which unfortunately the supreme court ruled unconstitutional. after the dot-com and 9/11

recessions the deficit re-re-emerged. the republicans were making progress to relieving the deficit, but when the democrats took over control of congress, we now have a monthly deficit of over $90 billion. since 2007 i voted more than 700 times to cut over $2.6 trillion in spending, over 150 times in 2011 alone. this bill represents another effort to rein in spending and get our fiscal house in order. it will withstand constitutional scrutiny and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, former member of the budget committee, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thanks, mr. chairman. thank my colleague from maryland and colleague from wisconsin for their bipartisan effort today. i'm pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the expedited rescission act. i actually -- i urge my

colleagues to support it. i'm listening to the concerns from our friends on both sides of the aisle, especially those on the appropriations committee, and i am not unsympathetic to the constitutional concerns raised about what does this do to the balance of power? i believe our friend -- the chairman of the budget committee, our friend from wisconsin, very ably just explained how actually this framework takes cognizance of those concerns and guarantees that while we give the president an opportunity to take another look at the whole bill and make some exsignificances, it also gives us another crack at an up or down whether we agree or don't. i believe that we as an institution cannot have it both ways. we can't say we are obsessed with the national debt, but when a statutory remedy is at hand to address it, we say no because of

an argument about prerogatives. the debt is so large and it isn't, i say to my friend from illinois, a matter of democrats or republicans, no hands are clean when it comes to the national debt. but we have in front of us one more tool to add to pay-go, to pad to the sequestration process, and hopefully other debt relief measures. here is a tool right in front of us, a stat roar i tool -- statutory tool, not a constitutional amendment, that actually can make a difference. i believe we should do that. i believe it will make a difference and i believe that it doesn't compromise the balance of power between the executive and the congressional used the way it's designed. i'm happy to rise in support of this legislation and i urge my colleagues to think carefully before they vote about whether we say yeah - or neigh -- nay.

with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, member of the appropriations committee, mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the expedited legislative line-item veto and rescissions act. while i think today's debate is valid and relevant, i have serious concerns about creeding -- creding more legislative authority to the executive branch. while i understand why my colleagues on the budget committee are trying to do, i feel we are tilting the constitutional powers and giving even more authority to the executive branch. soon it will resemble a monarchy. every budget reform exercise we go through, going back to the congressional empowerment act of 1974, seems to strengthen the executive branch and weaken the legislative branch. this process has more ofed into

a year -- morphed into a yearly exercise which congress receives a 10 pound, five volume, shrink wrapped budget that is simply the executive branch's earmarks. congress rarely challenges the bulk of the budget and left over fighting over the margins. a very small percentage of the total budget. when we do question the president's budget, we get push back from the executive branch agencies on any changes we want to make. . now, we want to force the president to either accept what congress passes or veto it. if the point of this legislation is to reduce our overall spending by giving the president this power, then we're ignoring one of the biggest drivers of our debt which is the tax code which was mentioned earlier. why leave out loopholes and giveaways from ways and means which is a permanent spending via the tax code? it was mixed by the chairman that the -- mentioned by the chairman that the appropriations bills are brought up under open rule.

i wondered why this bill was not brought up under open rule. the point is congress should be doing itsy, not turning over the hard choices to the president. we are saying that congress is giving up its authority on the constitution, this will not resolve our budget problem. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to a member of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, this bill presents us with a very simple question. is it just conceivelyably possible that the congress has -- conceivably possible that the congress has passed a spending bill that has great

scrutiny? the answer to this question may allude members of this house but i say that it is self-evident to everyone else. a country's whose finances is far out of control as ours suffers from not too many checks and balances on spending but too few. now opponents of this bill talk about this some new and radical idea. many states operate with a genuine line-item veto and have for generations. for those states it's been a vital tool to control their spending, and those previsions were far more stringent than what is proposed here. in conformance with our constitution, this bill simply invites the president to call to congress' attention those spending items that he recommends that we give additional thought to and puts a six-week hold on those funds while we do so. in fact, from 1801 to 1974 the president had the recognized authority to impound excess spending indefinitely, a

relitment executive function served from president thomas jefferson. it stripped this check on congressional excess. i'd prefer us to see that restore that fiscal safeguard and amend the constitution to provide the president with an actual line-item veto. but let's at least set up a process so that the president can warn us when he believes that we have appropriated more money than he needs to execute the laws that we have passed. this bill is frankly a mouse when we need a lion. the fact that it's produced sh weeks of horror from some -- shreaks of horror from some corners of the house is the exact extent of our problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. beiro. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, i rise

in support of h.r. 3521, the expedited legislative line-item veto and recisions act of 2011. this will cut spending and deficit by re-establishing the principle of a line-item veto. it should come to no surprise to anyone that occasionally and unnecessary a wasteful expenditure makes its way in a spending bill. this bill increases accountability of those expenditures by giving the president to identify specific wasteful spending and make congress take an up or down vote on its merits. it requires that all savings go directly toward deficit reduction. this legislation is a commonsense solution to cut wasteful spending and reduce our unsustainable deficit. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. it's a step toward getting our economy back on track and getting people back to work. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i yield two

minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, a member of the appropriations committee and the budget committee that marked this bill up. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, people ask if this bill is constitutional. frankly i think there is. no doubt about it. a lot of people raised the point it enhances the power of the presidency. i don't think there's much question that it does do that. a lot of people have argued it's substantive and there i have to respectfully disagree. there is nothing is up stan tif about this legislation at all. we already have gotten rid of earmarks. don't use them anymore. and the appropriations committee has hrd shown on its own it can cut spending, it's done it in two budget years, in a single calendar year. the problem here is we had a chance to do something substantive. there was amendments offered by

ms. mccollum and i that would have looked at direct spending. those amendments unfortunately were ruled out of order. pursuing bipartisanship and providing members of political cover is unworthy of the congress in my view and certainly this majority. our budget problems are serious. they deserve serious solutions. the ryan budget is a serious solution. the 2006 legislative line-item veto bill which included provisions to cover the very items that this bill does not was a serious solution. this legislation sadly is not serious and ought to be rejected. we need to be serious about the deficit we face. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'll yield myself 10 seconds to say i agree with what the gentleman said. he is a good friend. we don't have all spending in this bill but that doesn't mean

don't go after some of the spending that's passed by congress. this is the kind of spending congress passes annually every year. i think it's a good step in the right direction. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the republican house conference, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the distinguished chairman of the budget committee and for yielding and particularly for his leadership in being the number one budget hawk in the house. mr. chairman, hopefully by now all americans know we have a spending-driven debt crisis. we are now looking at the fourth, fourth $1 trillion deficit in a row. our debt to g.d.p. ratio now exceeds the entire size of our economy for the first time since world war ii.

again, we are in the midst of a crisis. we are mortgaging our children's future. we are bankrupting a great nation. we are hindering jobs and economic growth in this country. i listened very carefully to friends, close friends come to the house floor to argue against this bill and i agree with much of what they say. this is one individual tool in the toolbox. they point out the absence of needing more and they are correct. it is my hope and my aspiration that this house would take them up. i also, if i could, want to congratulate the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the house budget committee. it's not always easy in these times to work in a bipartisan basis. we had an opportunity to work on the joint select committee to which he was a positive force. we often disagreed, but he has

commanded my respect and he commands my respect today for his bipartisan work. i do want to congratulate the chairman of the appropriations committee and the entirety of his committee. for the first time in my lifetime under his leadership discretionary spending will decline two years in a row. an incredible achievement. i also want to thank our speaker, speaker boehner, for his leadership on the entire subject of earmarks. earmarks are not necessarily inherently bad, but, mr. chairman, we all know that too often it represented the triumph of seniority over merit and the triumph of local and special interests over national interests. under the leadership of our speaker with a little help from the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, they are no more.

but in a different time, different era they may return and this is an insurance policy of one person that is elected to represent the entirety of the nation, the president of the united states, can at least put a spotlight on that type of spending and just ask the united states congress to take that up or down vote. it's about transparency. it's about accountibility. it's about a modest tool in a time of debt crisis to help with jobs, economic growth and the survival of a great nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i thank the gentleman from texas for his words, and i just want to hearken back to what the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, said who's in opposition to the bill but he did make clear that in his opinion this bill is constitutional. i really think we should put that question aside. as the chairman of the committee has pointed out on

several occasions, congress gets the last word on this issue. congress gets an up or down majority vote. we're simple requiring that congress take a vote on savings that the president recommends for the taxpayer and we believe we should do that in the light of day. it's a small step. it's a little curious to hear one of the solutions offered from some of the folks opposed to this bill to give the president even more authority. on the one hand they say, well, we shouldn't do this because you're giving the president too much leverage. the amendment they mentioned, of course, would give the president even more leverage over tax expenditures and mandatory spending. so i'm a little puzzled there. where i do agree with them is that if we're going to get a hold on this deficit situation, we've got to deal with mandatory spending as well and we got to deal with the revenue side of the equation. tax expenditures and the

bipartisan commission, simpson-bowles, rivlin-domenici, had a bipartisan framework for doing that. while i don't agree with every one of those recommendations, i believe the framework was the right one. i agree with the chairman of the committee, mr. ryan, on this one. just because we are not able to tackle the whole thing as part of this reform effort doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tackle a piece of it. i think that is a small piece but important piece. i think it will have a positive impact on how this body approaches the appropriations bills. again, the way this process is driven now, it's not a criticism to the appropriations committee. they do the best they can under the rules that exists now. what this bill says is let's have one more opportunity. an opportunity to take an up or down vote on savings that the president believes we can make toward deficit reduction. it seems to me to be the positive step to take. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, mr. dicks. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. it is my judgment that -- and i listened to the statement made by the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers from kentucky, that this is unwarranted. especially now that congress has decided, at least for the time being, that we are not going to do earmarks. in my judgment this would get down to the situation if we are on the defense appropriations committee we added money for additional predator -- predator i.r.s. vehicles that can come out and get information. the president can take it right back down to his, as i understand it, take it right back down to his budget

request. what if the congress, because we had a lot of experience, many members of the appropriations committee, mr. young and i, have been here for over 30 years and served on this committee for over 30 years. and a lot of positive things happened where congress makes increases or decreases. now, if you are going to give the president the authority to send up a bill, especially, you know, after it's been voted on, the appropriations committee has gone through these things, i just think it's wrong. in fact, i don't -- on the earmark issue -- i frankly think the solution that the democrats had when we were in the majority where we said you can't have earmarks for private companies unless it's competitively awarded and then we took that away, but you still can help your schools. you can still help your local governments. you can still help your universities, your n.g.o.'s that are doing work on meth or other important issues.

you know, that would have been a better compromise, i think, than saying, no earmarks under any circumstance. it is clear to me that over the years, you know, we maybe -- we maybe got too many earmarks and that -- and that became a problem. but to go beyond that now and say we're going to have a line-item veto and congress has to vote on this i think is a serious mistake and i join my colleagues on the appropriations committee in opposition. i will just say one final thing. i also think if you're going to do it then you ought to do it for ways and means as well. that's where all the spending is. not just pick on the appropriations committee. we've done our job. ways and means hasn't done their job. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, with that i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr.

hurt. mr. hurt: i rise today in support of the legislative line-item veto act and i thank chairman ryan and ranking member van hollen for their work on this important bipartisan legislation. at a time when we're borrowing 40 cents on every $1 we spent, there's no more important time for congress to have an honest conversation about balancing our federal budget. it is clear that real reform is needed in our flawed federal budget process. the real reforms that we have considered over the last two weeks seek to improve this flawed process by getting at the root of the washington accounting gimmicks that have plagued congress for years. these reforms will provide more federal government transparency and accountability and put an end to business as usual when it comes to out-of-control spending in washington. that is why i support this line-item veto legislation. this bill would give the president the ability to veto wasteful spending provisions as a part of the appropriations process. this bill and the remaining budget reform bills will give

the american people an honest picture of how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent and will move us one step closer to addressing the debt crisis that threatens the very future of this great nation. mr. chairman, we know that both sides of the aisle have been a part of the problem when it comes to washington's reckless spending habit. what we have failed to recognize is that both sides must be a part of the solution. i urge all my colleagues to support this line-item veto bill and the rest of our budget reform proposals. proposals that hold the promise of a balanced and honest federal budget and a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i yield one minute to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for one minute. mr. young: mr. chairman, fellow colleagues, when you first took this office you swore to hold

the constitution of america. i hope you read the constitution, you say it's not relevant. it is. what we're doing here is transferring the power and i've watched for 40 years slowly creep into this body, transferring the power to the president's regulatory law. and now we're going to give him the power to line-item veto. shame on you. shame on you. this is a congress of the people. it's up to us to do the job. and the chairman has done the job this time. i'm looking down the road. the idea that we're going to let this house give this power to this president or any other president in the future, you've lost the constitution and america as we have today. let's think about this, ladies and gentlemen. that's what you're doing. you're transferring it to a monarchy. controlled by executive orders and now controlled the purse strings of this great nation to the congress saying you can't do

it. we're the representatives of the people. you talk about the debt, the debt is terrible. it's awful. but it will be worse to have our body in fact transfer the power of this house of the constitution to the president of the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, after that i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, a member of the budget committee, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, this bill's called the expedited line-item veto and rescissions act. i think it may be inappropriately named. because it givesen illusion that this is a veto power as we're used to seeing a veto power in the congress. this is not handing over to the president and saying, cut wherever you want and we have to override you. instead this is a presidential handing to him to say, ok, check

this, if he cease anything he doesn't like -- if he sees anything he doesn't like he sends back and we have to agree with it. if either the house or senate says no, that should be there, it stays. it's not an override, it's actually an agreement with the president on one thing or another. maybe this bill should have been called the second opinion bill. to be able to have what we put out of the house and out of the senate and what we passed, pass oobt the president, he takes a look at it and says, that all looks great, i'm signing off on it or say, maybe we should take a second look at this area. currently our appropriations team that we have the house is doing fantastic job of holding the line in spending. i am not as confident 10 years from now that that still exists. this is a check to that. currently this body has banned earmarks. it's not a permanent ban, it's in the rules for us, for this current session. will that still exist years from now? i don't know. this is a way to be able to deal with that issue, to say, if that were ever to slip back in, we

can get that in. maybe this bill should be called the trust but verify bill. i can tell you even as a freshman house member there have been moments that i voted for something and then picked up the newspaper the next day only to read something that none of us were aware had slipped in. this provides that moment that when we pick up the newspaper the next day after something's passed, to have another moment to have that trust but verify moment to be able to look at it and say, why don't we see if we can take another look at that and if that came back to us in an individual form i bet we would vote that down. this is one more tool in the tool box of reducing spending and a moment with 15.-- $15.3 trillion in debt, in a moment that the deficit all of us have great disdain for, let's take every opportunity we can possibly take to find moments and places where with he can reduce spending. to let the president allow this

body and the body on the other side of the rotunda say we agree or disagree, if we disagree, fine, we voted for it the first time, let's vote it the second time. we may come back at it and say, when that comes back out in the light of day, i agree with you. let's pull that out and find one more spot to do deficit reduction. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i would inquire -- we're ready to close. i would yield myself the rest of the balance of the time. how much time is that, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate the fact that some of my good friends have a different opinion about this than i do, particularly the chairman ryan and mr. van hollen. i appreciate the bipartisanship in which they have worked on this issue but i will tell you, bipartisanship does not make something right which is fundamentally wrong. and this is fundamentally wrong. i also feel a little bit like

cuss ter at the little big horn -- custer at the little bighorn. i know this is probably going to pass, without much doubt. but it's still wrong. for 200 years as the gentleman from alaska said congress has been shifting more and more authority to the administrative branch or to the administrative branch of government. we are doing again with this legislation. i keep hearing people talk about earmarks and airdropped provisions in appropriation bills. i would remind the members, in the 2011 appropriation bill there were no earmarks. there were no airdrops. in the 2012 appropriation bills there were no earmarks, there were no aircrops. we have changed the way we -- airdrops. we have changed the way we do business around here. you might have had an argue several -- argument several years ago when there were thousands of earmarks in the appropriation bill. that doesn't happen anymore. for the first time we're trying to bring appropriation bills for the first time in five years, bring appropriation bills to the

floor under an open rule. we didn't get it all done last year. we ended up with an omnibus as mr. van hollen shows on his table. this year we are committed, given the floor time, we're going to bring every appropriation bill to the floor under an open rule so that every member who has a problem with any provision can offer an amendment to have that removed. it's been said that this is constitutional. mr. van hollen said, so let's take that argument away. not necessarily and not so quickly. in conversations with members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, they have concerns. that this may be unconstitutional. because what's required now is that the president presents the judicial request for appropriations but he can't change it. he just passes it on to congress. this gives the president a say in line iteming specific provisions in the judicial request which may violate both u.s. code and be

unconstitutional. so that question is still out there about the constitutionality of this. i will tell you, in times of extraordinary circumstances, as we currently have, with a $15 trillion debt, and everyone wants to reduce that debt, nobody more than the members of the appropriation committee that have reduced spending the last two years, but in times of extraordinary circumstances we often do unwise things in the name of trying to address that problem. such is this bill. most members have never negotiated an appropriation bill with the senate. let me tell you how it works. we would think that the president has no say in the appropriation process until we present him with a bill. when i was negotiating the interior bill with the senate i was not negotiating with the senate, i was negotiating with the white house. they did not approve anything that was not preapproved by the administration. and we made some deals. and we got some priorities of things that we on the republican side think are important. and the president got some priorities that he thinks are

important on his side. that's called legislating. but now what you're going to do is say, ok, you make those deals, you get an appropriation bill, there's going to be things in it i don't like, there's going to be things in it the administration don't like, there's going to be things in it that nobody in here likes but now you're going to give the president a second bite at the apple to break that deal and do you think he's going to take those things that republicans think are not -- are not their priorities and take them out of the bill? of course not. he's going to take out republican priorities and put them up for a second vote. and a republican president would do the same thing to the democrats. this is going to be partisan politics. and when you say it comes back for congress to have a final say, once it comes back to overriding a veto or overriding a rescission it then becomes political. you on your side of the aisle in this case are going to say, we have to support our president. that's what happens. that's the reality. we on our side of the aisle would say the same thing if it

were a republican president. that's just reality. so what you're breaking down is that balance of power between the administrative branch of government and the legislative branch of government. this is without a doubt a step in the wrong direction. voting for this bill will not make you a budget hawk. and frankly i don't think it will save any money. but it will make for some good press releases. but don't go out and say that you've reduced federal spending and you've taken wasteful spending out of the federal budget by passing this bill. you haven't. what you've done is said, i'm willing to sacrifice the legislative authority that was given to us in the constitution and shift more power to the administrative branch of government. do you honestly believe that the founding fathers would recognize what they built in the constitution? do you really think that they would look at the administrative branch of government and say, we wanted this kind of presidency

and a weak legislative branch think? don't think so. this is a bad bill, i would vote it down if i were you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. this bill is an important bipartisan measure. it has bipartisan support here in the house. it has strong bipartisan support in the senate where it's introduced by senator carper and senator mccain and has strong bipartisan co-sponsorship. it's supported by the obama administration. but mr. simpson's absolutely right. it's not the bipartisanship that makes this bill the right thing to do, it's the fact that it calls for greater transparency and greater accountability in our process. everybody in this body has to concede that we can improve our budget process. yes we should work on the tax expenditure component, yes we should work on mandatory spending, of course we should. but this is a simple bipartisan

measure we can take to provide more transparency when it comes to over $1 trillion in discretionary spending. and i go back to where i started . just look at this bill. 1,200-plus pages. this house took less than 15 hours, less than 15 hours to review this bill. now, given the fact that we didn't have adequate time to scrutinize this, i don't see anything wrong with saying that if the president of the united states, republican or democrat, identifies some savings we can make for the taxpayer that go to deficit reduction, that this congress should have to vote on that. don't have to say yes, you just have to vote up or down. and for those who argue otherwise, i have to say that i don't think putting turf over

the taxpayer is a winning argument when it comes to dealing with our budget issues. because make no mistake, this is constitutional, it's been designed to be constitutional, mr. young said, i said it wasn't relevant to the constitution. that's not what i said. it's totally relevant that it's constitutional and it's designed that way, congress has the final say. that's what makes this constitutional. are we giving the president a little more power? well, only if you say it's more power to recommend to congress some savings for the taxpayer and that we will then vote on them. seems to me that's just basic responsibility. well over a majority of governors have total line-item authority. this is not line eye-item authority -- line-item authority because it requires congressional vote and oversight . so i would say that the process

is broken, it's not broken because of the appropriations committee. they do incredible hard work and put in lots of hours. but at the enof the day we just saw last december, less than 15 hours to review 1,200 pages of appropriations bills. who in this body can say that they looked at everything, they scrutinized everything, that we can't find any additional savings for the taxpayer for the purpose of deficit reduction? so i ask my colleagues to support this bill, not because it's bipartisan but it is, and i think that's an important reflection on the fact that people on both sides of the aisle bringing their own independent judgment to bear on this have concluded this to be in the best interest of the country, but in addition to that, it does take one measured responsible step toward improving a broken budget

process. and my goodness, at the end of the day that would be a good day's work in a bipartisan congress if we could get that done. i thank, again, the chairman of the committee, mr. ryan, i thank his staff and our staff, the democratic staff on the committee for working together. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. i give back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for for four minutes. -- wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: mr. simpson, i want to thank him for a civil and spirited debate. this is not an attempt to go after one committee, the appropriations committee. and i understand that this committee might feel that way. this is an attempt to take one more step on behalf of the taxpayers to clean up the system on how we spend hardworking taxpayers' dollars.

here's the issue, mr. chairman. when we pass large spending bills we vote on things we are not even sure we are voting on. and i think the measure of success of this reform will not be measured by how many individual spending line items get voted out of spending by congress but how many items don't get put in these bills in the first place. because this brings through to the final part of the process that extra level of transparency and accountability that has been lacking. i'll take a provision authored by a republican a few years ago as an example. $40 million, i think that's the number, for a rain forest museum in iowa and a spending bill for labor and helped that didn't go through the house, didn't go through the senate

and came at the last minute. and the congress is banning earmarks and ear drops but who say they won't turn under new management someday? i think it would be helpful for the process, you know what, if we'll put $40 million for a rain forest museum without consideration in the house or senate we ought to think about that individually. more importantly, if i am a member of congress, if i want to put this in a spending bill, i ought to think twice whether or not ildefend this kind of spending on an individual vote among my peers because this could happen under this reform. this is constitutional because the president signs this spending bill. he didn't sign part of it, rescinds part of it, he signs it and this gives him the ability to create a new bill saying, vote on this piece of spending and we have expedited

procedures so we have to take a vote. it's no different than how presidents send us trade agreements to vote on under expedited procedures. we are not saying the president could take a part of the bill and sign this and this, no, no, no. we are saying the president sibes a big spending bill and then if he wants he can write a new bill within a tight window

so we are always thinking of the taxpayer first and special interests second in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. will this fix all of our problems? no. but this along with many other reforms we seek to bring to the floor will hopefully turn the process by which we spend taxpayer dollars into one that is more accountable, more transparent and more responsible. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 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 amendments recommended by the committees on the budget and rules printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-12. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 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 112-389. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-389 offered by mr. ryan of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 540, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i don't think we need to spend the entire. a time on this. this amendment makes technical revisions to certain procedures and definitions. the time period was reduced from five legislative days to three legislative days for the introduction of an approval bill and the motion to proceed. the amendment clarifies that approval bills are described as discretionary only. additionally it includes a procedure that provides for the consideration of an approval bill, should the privilege congress end before an up or down vote. all this does, mr. chairman, is clarify concerns raised by the rules committee so that we can consistent procedures and concerns by the minority that this bill simply does what it says it does and that it sir come scribes the discretionary spending. with that i really have no other things to say other than i'd be happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i have nothing to add to that and would urge adoption of the amendment. mr. ryan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-389. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. alexander: mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-389 offered by mr. alexander of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 540, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. alexander, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. dandsdand thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. alexander: thank you, mr. chairman. if we decide whether or not the president of the united states should have the authority to propose cuts to funding that congress appropriates money to, i cannot help but be grateful

concerned about how he may use those powers. when i as much as anyone here agrees that our government must constrain and cut unnecessary expenditures, i feel like the president is given certain powers to take away what congress has given which would hurt certain states and regions whose needs the president may not fully understand. of particular concern to me, mr. chairman, is the importance of the water resources, the projects across this country that are vitally important to our national security and economy. with this in mind, i believe that a line must be drawn when it comes to the president's authority to propose a rescission to the budget of the army corps of engineers. an agency that's older than our nation itself. corps of engineers helped general washington win the

revolutionary war. the corps of engineers carries out water resource projects throughout the united states, including projects that protect citizens from flood hazards and keep commercial waterways navigatable. these projects are important. they are important to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. the congressional appropriations for the corps typically exceeds what the president's requests have been. i believe we must prevent any president, republican or democrat, from having the authority to reduce funding for critical water resource projects. it is just too important to this nation. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member like to claim time in opposition? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes.

mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i won't take all my time. the gentleman is right, the army corps provides an extremely important function, very valid federal function to our government, to our country. i rise in opposition only we shouldn't be covering not exceptions. the idea we will carve out an exception from appropriation bills for consideration to one government agency versus all the other government agencies out there i just don't think that's a good precedent to set. what's to say other agencies shupet be exempted from consideration -- shouldn't be exempted from consideration? if congress feels these are important projects which they clearly do when they pass these bills then clearly they will affirm that if another vote does arise. for the sake of consistency, for the sake of treating all agencies equal, i would urge rejection of this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. alexander: with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote -- 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 representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 128. the nays are 300. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. 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. 3521 and reports the bill back to

the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3521 and pursuant to house resolution 540 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. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amended reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as adopted. those in favor say 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 say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill 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: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i ask for a recorded vote. mr. ryan: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 254, the nays are 173, the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the engrossment of h.r. 3521, the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation and cross references and make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members please take their conversations off the floor.

members please clear the aisles. the house will be in order. members please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i offer a motion to instruct on h.r. 3630. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3630, offered by mr. bishop of new york. mr. bishop of new york moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h r. 3630 be instructed to file a conference report no later than february 17, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from yovering, mr. walden, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. mr. speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is very simple and straightforward. it direct cons ferees negotiating extensions of the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance and the s.g.r. to file their conference report by february 17, 2012. day in and day out, members of the body come to the floor to speak about the level of uncertainty that is hindering the u.s. economy and stifling job growth. we have heard speaker boehner argue that the bush tax cuts must be extended in perpetuity to relieve corporations of uncertainty. we have heard our tea party friends rally against the deficit in order to reduce uncertainty for job creators. time and time again we have heard our republican colleagues speak of the uncertainties that e.p.a. regulations have created for expanding jobs. yet when we contemplate the uncertainty for consumers, small businesses, doctors, and the unemployed, driven by congress' inability to address the payroll tax extension, the

s.g.r. fix and other benefits, our colleagues are silence. we remember in december after touting the benefits of tax cuts, our republican colleagues changed their minds when a payroll tax without was considered a tax cut that will provide million os -- immediate relief for millions of americans and will immediately benefit the economy. as we have debated these issues for several months, we have seen the data and heard from economists who say extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance is good for american families, businesses, an economic growth. it isn't the silver bullet to solving our nation's problems but it's a step in the right direction. a stretch that can provide some relief to the unemployed and stimulate consumer spending, which is fundamental to improving the overall economy by extending the payroll tax cut through the end of the year, 160 million americans would continue to take home more money in their paycheck. for a family earning $50,000 a year, that's about $80 a month or about $1,000 for the year.

without the extension, that $1,000 is unavailable to families for buying groceries or putting gas in their vehicles or buying their children new clothes for school, which when spent at local businesses sparks economic activity. these facts are indisputable. moody's analytics estimates that for every $1 spent on the payroll tax without, it produtions $1.27 in economic activity. j.p. morgan economists also estimate that halting the unemployment would shave .75 off the g.d.p. next year. macroeconomic advisors provided a similar analysis last year, saying allowing the payroll tax cut to lapse would reduce g.d.p. growth by .5% and cost the economy 400,000 jobs. a job loss of that magnitude would destroy the improvements in employment we've seen since president obama took office. last week the labor department reported that 243,000 jobs were

added to the economy in january. marking the 23rd consecutive month of private sector job growth. the unemployment rate also fell to 8.3%, the lowest point since february of 2009. we clearly still have a long, long way to go but failure to extend these critical programs would stifle the progress we have seen thus far and thwart future growth. but americans don't know if they'll have that extra $80 a month to spend come march 1 and businesses are equally uncertain about whether or not their customers will have that extra income to spend. yesterday, mark sandy, the chief economist at moody's analytic, told the committee that it is vital, vital to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance which together could add .9% to g.d.p. if done for the whole year. he also said the failure to do so would deal, quote, a significant blow to the economy, cutting growth by almost one full percentage point. we must extend both the payroll

tax cult and unemployment insurance. unemployment insurance provides temporary relief to americans who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. in a sense, it's a bridge to re-employment. the average weekly benefit in 2011 was $300 a week. that's $1,200 a month. take that away and millions of unemployed americans lose a lifeline to put gas in their tank to get to that job interview or hire a babysitter while they go out to look for a job. every little bit helps to get them back on their feet and that's all americans want to do, get back to work. in every recession since 1957, the federal government has stepped in to provide additional support for unemployed workers. without an extension, five million people will exhaust their benefits by the end of 2012. furthermore, under the g.o.p. proposal in december to adjust the unemployment program, 3.3 million people would lose their unemployment benefits. the council of economic advisors estimates that if unemployment benefits are not extended, the economy can be

expected to generate 478,000 fewer jobs, that's fewer jobs, by the end of 2014, an estimate that is consistent with c.b.o. projections. c.b.o. also estimates that $36 billion spent on unemployment insurance would raise g.d.p. would raise -- by 2.2%. the american economic institute estimated that extending unemployment would create a .4% uncrease in g.d.p. while the estimates differ, they all point to increased economic activity, yet here we are, debating whether this vital lifeline should be extended for 10 months. for struggling families, this is a frightening time to find our elected leaders squabbling about the keystone pipeline and drug testing for welfare recipients. a survey done in 2011 by the nabble federation of

independent businesses found that 53% of small businesses said lack of demand is an impediment to growth. extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment will put additional money in the hands of americans who will turn -- in turn spend that money on necessities like food, clothing, and travel. when consumer spending represents roughly 70% of our economy, the policies that create the environment for growth will be the ones that get americans spending again and we can do that by putting more money back into the pockets of americans struggling to make ends meet. it's not just american workers and the unemployed facing uncertainty. medicare doctors and patients are too. if we don't act, the s.g.r. formula responsible for medicare physician payments will cut reimbursements by 27.4% starting on march 1. a cut this large will force more doctors out of medicare at a time when doctors find it difficult to treat medicare patients, pay employees, and keep their practices open. a 2011 net tax survey found that % of medicare recipients

having trouble finding physicians, which may not sound like a lot but previous surveys found that there were very few problems. a 2010 survey by the american medical association found that 17% of physicians were restricting the number of medicare patients in their practice. if we fail to find a permanent solution to the s.g.r., these numbers will only rise and medicare patients will not receive the care they need or deserve. mr. speaker, the congress must act to end this uncertainty. i urge my colleagues to support this simple motion to instruct and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: we have seen this motion to instruct before and it calls on the countries which

i'm a member to act, i believe by february 17, i believe, is the date it's set. we would like to act. we i wait an alternative from the senate. the conference committee has met and led by our capable chairman, dave camp of michigan, we've held, i believe, three or four open, joint house-senate republican-democrat, conference discussions. meetings. which haven't happened around here certainly in the last congress, i don't think it ever happened and we're doing it in broad daylight. we've had four of those and our staffs are having some discussions but you've got to go back and understand that the house, under republican leadership, actually passed a one-year extension of the unemployment benefits. the house republican-led, passed a two-year doc fix, which meant for seniors, who

are on medicare, that the physicians they rely so much on for their health care, that those physicians would continue to be able to afford to see them and not face a 27.4% cut in the reimbursement rates. here's the deal, we passed that and we funded it and we did it for two years. not two months, two years. we did the payroll taxes, as it's called by my friends on the other side of the aisle, payroll tax, middle class american, working american tax cut for a full year. now there's a debate about whether that should be offset or not because our party has said you know, when we reduce the tax burden on hardworking middle class americans, families and job creators, we shouldn't have to go raise somebody else's taxes to do that. the difference on this, we're talking about social security taxes. this is about reducing the amount of money that you and i

pay into social security and every working american that pays into social security. we're saying, you get to reduce how much you pay into social security by this 2%. now, those of us on this side of the aisle believe that the social security trust fund has been raided once too many times, by both parties over time, but that that should stop. so if we're going to reduce how much goes into social security, we should offset that somehow so the fund is not drained. and that can be done in a multitude of ways but it should be done. because otherwise, it's less money going into the social security trust fund and i think we'd all have to admit as the actuaries do, that in the end of the day, social security trust fund is not the best-funded trust fund on the plan et and we need to do some work to secure the refirmente of future generations in social security. so back to the point here, the house passed all that. we did a one-year payroll tax reduction so that hardworking middle class americans would

have tax relief. they'd have that extra money in the pocket. lord knows they need it, especially when you see what's happened under this president with energy costs, i think gasoline was $1.86 a gallon when president obama took office, we know now it's between $3 and pushing $4, over $4, depending on where you are in america. got to have a little extra money to try to keep up and take your kids to soccer and go to school and go to work. it's hard out there. we passed a year extension of that and a full year of unemployment. for those who have vuggled in this horrible economy, there have been 11 recessions since world war ii. 11 recessions. this is the wort in terms of a recovery from a recession. when ronald reagan was president we had a horrible recession in the early 1980's. we came out of that recession that if it was the same pace as the process then as -- or now as then you'd create something like

15 million, 16 million new jobs which means virtually everybody who is unemployed and still uncounted, because a lot of people have fallen off the unemployment rolls, aren't counted, all of them would have jobs if we were growing at the same pace we did when president reagan was in office and came out of that recession. but we're not. the policies really haven't worked. so-called stimulus that we were told, the american taxpayers were told, if it were just passed, somehow unemployment would never get above 8%. now $1 trillion-plus play ther with interest payments that the next generation -- with interest payments that the next generation saw. i'm glad to see the job gains in the private sector. my wife and i have been small business owners since 1986 in oregon. i understand what it's like to sign the front of a payroll check and the back and to grow a business and to deal in good times and bad. but the long and short of it is

this is a horrible recession so coming out of this we need that bridge. and we put some reforms in unemployment to help people, to lift them up, to give them incentive when they're out there for a year or a year and a half, two years, that maybe we can help them get a better education, encourage that, allow states to encourage that, to help theth them get a g.e.d. because all the data shows if you have a high school diploma, a g.e.d., the odds of you getting hired are much higher. then we gave the states the opportunity to do drug screening. i've heard from a lot of employers in my district out in rural oregon that say, you know, we do drug tests and congress man, you'd be shocked at how many people apply for the job and can't pass the drug test. well, if you can't pass the drug test then maybe you really aren't actively seeking work in a way that's legitimate because you can't get hired and yet you're on unemployment. so why don't we do some sort of

screen, figure that problem out you have and help you then get treatment? and so we said to states, we're going to do away with a federal decision that's, i don't know, 20, 30, 40 years old that said stapets don't have this authority. i think states can manage this pretty well. that was in the bill the house passed. so we did all these things a year -- these things, a year reduction in the taxes people pay, the payroll tax deduction, a two-year fix for your physicians who treat our families on medicare and both of my parents, they're gone now, were on medicare. my wife's parents who have also passed away, they were on medicare. this is an incredibly valuable program. but we passed a two-year fix for them and the one-year for unemployment, the one-year for the middle class tax cuts. all that went over to the senate. and this is probably something we can maybe agree on here. what we got back from the other chamber was a two-month extension of those things.

now some of us stayed around here when the house said, really, a two-month when this is a year and two-year problem? why don't you appoint some negotiators? so the speaker of the house appointed the negotiators for the house side and we hoped that the senate would appoint negotiators and they didn't. they didn't appoint anybody. in fact, they left town. and eventually when nobody showed up after we'd been here for a week trying to see if we count bring both sides, the house and the senate, together and republicans and democrats and work outing so more than a two-month deal, they wouldn't show and we ended up passing both-month extension which by the way, mr. speaker, puts us right back where we are right now. which is why we have this motion to instruct from my friends on the other side of the aisle, calling on the conference committee to get its work done by the 17th. so we have looked for that. the last time this was voted on here, it was overwhelming. i think there were only 16 no votes in the house. so, i mean, we want to get this done, too. now, the republican conferees

from the house and the senate met today, as we've done over the last week or two. the democrats senate conferees by the way, they had a retreat today down at the national ballpark. it was a planning retreat. both parties have had these in the house but it just sort of caused a pause in the effort because the democrats were all off at a policy retreat today from the senate. so we weren't able to accomplish much today. but we hope to get some -- something from the senate. because you see, they go into the conference and they had this two-month effort against our one-year. and so we can't negotiate against ourselves. so we're waiting for a proposal back from the senate which we hope to get soon. and if we do, then tomorrow we'll meet at 10:00, republicans, democrats, house senate, to try and work this through. we want to get this done, the american people deserve to have us get this done and we're working on a way to do that. so i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker.

>> mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute for a couple of quick comments so we all have the same set of facts. the senate conferees were appointed on december 23. mr. bishop: the very same day that the provision that we're talking about passed the house by unanimous consent. the conference committee did not meet until the 27th of january for the first time. that's one. two, we talk about the reagan recession. the reagan recession was nowhere near as severe as the -- let's call it the bush recession. the g.d.p., fourth quarter of 2008, declined at a rate of over 8%. annual decline of over 8%. most severe recession we've had since the great depression. jobs lost. last 14 months of the bush administration we lost jobs every single month culminating in the last month in office, a job loss of 735,000 jobs. president obama's been president

for 36 months, we've had job growth, private sector job growth in 23 of those months. drug testing. one comment. over 400,000 americans have lost their jobs in the last three years as a result of corporations outsourcing -- i'll yield myself another 30 seconds. outsourcing jobs to other countries. so these are people who lost their jobs, ready, willing and able to do them, lost their jobs as a result of really corporations unrelentingly pursuing profits at the expense of middle class americans. do we really want to add insult to injury and tell them that if they need unemployment they're going to have to be drug tested? i yield three minutes to mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. the major reason why this motion to instruct is timely is the answer to this question. what will we know after february 17 that we don't know now?

there's going to be no new information. so what would justify the delay? what we know now, number one, is that republican economists and democrat economists say that this is a very fragile recovery. we're all happen happy that the unemployment rate is going down, but we're all concerned that it's unacceptably too high. and when you have republican and democratic-aligned economists saying unanimously, to take this money out of the economy at this time would stall the recovery, we all agree that we can't do that. so, that's not going to change between now and february 17. secondly, we know that on the paid-for, we have clear lines of division on this. if you have a pay-for that basically takes with one hand what was given in the other, in

other words you cut spending on things that help middle class families and then you -- to pay for a 2% reduction in their payroll tax, that zeros out the stimulative effect. so from a macroeconomic point of view it does no good for the economy when all of us assert that our goal is to stimulate the -- is to help the economy. the second question is political tactics and the political tactic of this congress has been brinksmanship. on december 10, when we just about turned out the lights on government, it was a last-minute agreement that finally kept them on, it included a tax provision that extended the high income tax cuts, added $800 billion to the deficit. but created some significant anxiety in the markets as to whether this institution could do its job. fast forward, august of 2011 and the fiasco, that's the only word

that can be used, of this house of representatives actually having a debate about whether it was legitimate for the people of this country to not pay their bills. that caused enormous anxiety in the markets. by the way, that hurts the economy. december of last year, we are in the payroll tax fight. this is where i think we get to the heart of the matter. there's a difference of opinion on the payroll tax. the democratic side is essentially for it, it was very clear the republicans were against it and it was kicking and dragging when the speaker came back with the unanimous con sent and overrode -- consent and overrode the action that had been previously taken. so the reality of the situation we're in now is that the other side is saying yes, yes, yes, they're for a payroll tax reduction but their actions say no way, no way, no way. it's time to act. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. >> mr. speaker, may i -- mr. walden: mook, may i ask how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: yes. the gentleman from oregon has 21 minutes. the gentleman from new york has 17 1/2 minutes. mr. walden: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for yielding. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: microphone. mr. pascrell: thankfully we're in a leap year because we have two weeks to the day to come to an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut, the doc fix and the important unemployment benefits. we can't let taxes go up to the american people by $100 billion. let's get this clear what this

costs. yet the majority is willing to bail out certain banks, protect billionaires by having their taxes go up by one dime, has to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the middle class a little help. and the gentleman from new york was absolutely correct. to compare what the reagan administration faced, and i thought they did a good job in responding to the problem, to this almost catastrophe off the cliff is a stretch beyond one's imagination. it doesn't stand up to logic. so far this year the economic indicators have shown some improvements. not what you would like, not what i would like, not what the gentleman from long island would like, but we're going in the right direction. i'm sorry if some folks on the other side don't like that but that's what's happening.

we've had 23 months of private sector job growth. increases in manufacturing up not since the early 1990's, mid 1990's, our manufacturing. when the president raised his hand in january of 2009 we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. now the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, nowhere where either side wants it to be. but however the failure to pass a payroll tax cut would put the brakes on our economic growth by reducing our gross domestic product by $28 billion off the bat. the recovery is still fragile. in the states, including my home state of new jersey, having above average -- have an above average unemployment rate. unfortunately the failure to pass an extension would also hurt new jersey almost more than any other state. first folks living in bergen

county, they lose $1,400. now that may not seem alike if you're paying a tax rate of 13.9%, hint, hint, but it is a significant amount of money directly in the pockets of the middle class families in northern new jersey. nationwide failure to pass an extension would reduce employment by 350 -- $350,000 and you're saying we all agree, mr. speaker, we all agree that this payroll tax cut is a good thing. but we disagree profoundly as to how we're going to pay for it and -- this and i know it's tough for you to come to the well to find places to pay for it since you didn't pay for anything. between -- 30 seconds? 30 seconds? mr. bishop: i yield the gentleman an additional 30

seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. in new jersey this means that the construction industry would lose over $100 billion in sales, manufacturing would lose d $285 million in sales, and the real estate professionals would lose $159 million in sales. overall there would be a reduction over 11,000 jobs. this is totally unacceptable. the answer to job creation and economic growth is in front of our faces. help the middle class grow with tax relief, smart investments now. put it in context, and i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i want to just address a couple of points. first of all, my dear friend from new jersey when he talks about the congress bailing out the banks, he may want to talk to his colleague from new york since i think he voted for tarp in that process. so, anyway, he may want to have that discussion right there, you

two are pretty close together, you can work that deal out. i want to talk about market anxiety. mr. pascrell: will the gentleman yield? mr. walden: yeah, i'll yield to you. mr. pascrell: we could level the sail criticisms about bailing out the auto industry. some banks took advantage of it, some did not. mr. walden: reclaiming my time. i don't disagree with that, i don't support those, but i wanted to make sure the economy didn't collapse. we did face some problems. the interesting thing is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are the ones who voted against the long-term payroll tax reduction that republicans put forward, who voted against the one-year extension of unemployment, the one-year extension of unemployment, and the two-year doc fix. just a minute.

i've got a couple of other things i'm going to share with you first. that's what the house passed, right? so what we got back from the senate was the two-month short-term that we're all upset about. i agree with you. having been a small business owner, a couple of things bad about that two-month extension which in the end we tweaked and fix, one is just doing the payroll. trying to get the formulas, the calculation the software and your payroll system, all that had to be changed for employers. we got that fixed at the end. which is a good thing. going forward, we need long-term predictability and certainty. that's what republicans sought and the speak -- that's what republicans thought and speaker boehner thought in the beginning, why don't we stop keeping these cans down the road in the short term and get away from the problems that riled the markets, as one of my colleagues said earlier. why were we forced into this mess with the short-term continuing resolutions that time and again we came right up

to the brink on? why? because under speaker pelosi, my friends on the other side of the aisle did not produce a budget, nor did they fund the agencies for the full fiscal year. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. walden: no, i won't. not 59 this moment. topet leave. this is the problem of the dysfunctional nature of what happened here in congress. two years ago. which then, when we took the majority in january of last year, we inherited. no budget, just like our colleagues on the other side have not produced a -- produced -- produced a budget in more than 1,000 days, they still haven't produced a budget. if we were on aed before -- board of directors of a nonprofit and we didn't do a budget every year, they'd say you're being mall tee isn't a, you're not -- malfeasant, you're not doing your job. so we didn't pass a budget. the royce also funded the

government, we only have a majority on a good day in a third of the process. so we had to work with our friends on the other side and the president downtown. at the end of the day, we funded the government for the rest of the fiscal year. you talk about anxiety in the markets and all that, by the way, having brought some stability back to government, having seriously said, we have to pay for spending and -- by cutting spending, the market now is at a -- at the highest level it's been since the crash of 2008 or thereabouts. so it's coming back. that doesn't help the average joe out there on the street, people trying to find work, and there's been a lot of effort to try to deal with that. but we got a long way to go. i agree with my colleague. none of us is happy at 8.3% or 10% of 16% unemployment. is we have -- so we have a lock way to go. mr. pascrell: i agree with much of what you're saying.

we need a bipartisan solution. the problem is, you failed to mention that how you pay for this is what really caused the disagreement, whether it was august or even december. even december. go back to december. when we had another opportunity and we did not rise to that occasion. if you are not, if you are not willing to at least come together and compromise on how you pay for these things, i know it's a difficult thing, and i respect the integrity of your words and yourself when i say this, i say this whole heartedly, and full heartedly. if we can't agree on how we're going to pay for the payroll tax cut because you look, you look at what you've suggested, you're suggesting that we go deeper into the general budget and cut things that are near and dear to not only yourself

-- mr. walden: i'm going to reclaim my time. you actually have time. the point is, that's the discussion we're having right now, is how to pay for it. that is the discussion we're having work the senate and there's disagreement. but there should be no misunderstanding that it was the republican house that put forward the one-year extension of the payroll tax cut for these same working class folks. they was republican house that put forward a two-year fix for the docs, so they had certainty in their medical practice -- practices and could continue to see seniors on medicare and it was the house that passed the one-year extension on unemployment. we think the spend it when you don't have it days are over. this country's job outlook is affected because of this country's government's failure to cut spending. we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. there's nothing that has a longer chance of living in america than a government program created in washington. we have got to do a better job. it's not easy. the hardest thing you can do in

this job is tell somebody no. but owe -- but you know what, too many times, too many people in this chamber, over the years, have only said yes to spending and creating new programs. that has to change system of we did have a debate about increasing the debt ceiling. for the first time, we said it's not going to be that automatic democratic dick gephardt rule that said when you pass a budget, you raise the debt ceiling automatically. we thought it's time to have the debate, as painful tses after -- as it was, as difficult as it was to say we have to justify set this increase in deficit by cutting spend,. i know as a small business owner, we would have been broke in our small business if it had been run as this government runs. there are good times and bad times in government, work around some level of borrowing and some level of deficit but it isn't far from this porch out here to the debt crisis greece has and portugal has and

the european countries have and are facing right now. we have time to fix that. that's why we're saying rather than cut the funding going into social security and not replace it with something else, is a mistake. that's what we're saying. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: the gentleman renched my vote on tarp, i voted for tarp, mr. cantor voted for tarp, mr. boehner voted for tarp. with that, i yield three minutes to my friend from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. how much time are you requesting? mr. andrews: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i thank my friend from new york for this opportunity. we got some welcome economic news last friday that companies added about a quarter of a

million private sector jobs. it's long overdue and we hope and pray to it continues for many, many months to come. the country is coming back but we have a very long way to go. and i think one of the reasons that the country is coming back is that at the beginning of 2011, everybody learned a -- who earns a wage in this country got a fairy substantial tax cut so they'd buy more in the stores, maybe eat a little in restaurants and buy more goods and services. it and some other things, i think, started to work. the worst thing we could do would be to interrupt that recovery by failing to extend this tax relief for middle class americans. and i'm willing to take at face value, i think almost everyone in this house agrees with this proposition. i thinkern agrees with the proposition that it would do great harm to our economy not to make this happen. here's what i think stands in the way of where we are and where we need to get to.

in any negotiation, you can't succeed by negotiation through ultimatum. there's some things that i really think ought to happen. i frankly think the way to pay for this is a very small tax surcharge on the very wealthiest americans. i think that those who make more than $1 million a year, who have gotten, by the way, 90% of the pay raises in this country over the last decade, i think asking them to contribute to the deficit reduction is a fair thing to do. i think it's what we should do. but i don't think we should make it an ultimatum and i don't think our party is making it an ultimatum. the problem as i see it, the last time we went around on this one-year extension, we heard from the other side two very important matters that i think are rather extraneous to solving this problem. the first was, had the functional effect of a cut in unemployment benefits. now, at a time when there are four unemployed americans for

every one open job, i think to presume that the unemployed are lazy or not working hard to find a job is really just factually incorrect and frankly indefensible. we don't agree with extending this recovery by cutting the unemployment benefits of people out there looking for work. we don't think that's a good idea. the other ultimatum came on the shomb the pipeline. there's all different views on the pipeline, some pro, some con, within both parties. i hope that what we're able to do is stop the negotiation by ultimatum and extend this for the rest of the year and the purpose of mr. bishop's amendment needs to be looked at. there's no good reason why this can't be done by the 17th of february. frankly, it should have been done by the 17th of january. we all made this decision at the end of december, there was no reason this couldn't have been done in the month of january, but here we are. when the american people have a dispute in their family, in their business, at the -- at

the labor negotiation table, at the school board, no matter where they are they don't negotiate by ultimatum. neither should the congress. frankly, when i heard from the other side in december that we must do the pipeline or no extension of the tax cut, we must cut unemployment benefits or no extension of the tax cut, that's not the way to run the country, that's not what we ought to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. how much time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has 13 1/2 minute the gentleman from new york has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd like to point out a couple of things so we get on the same terms here. i was actually here until the 23rd day of december, as were the republicans appointed to be conferees. i don't know that leader pelosi had appointed democrat conferees at that point. i don't think in that process she had yet, although she did somewhere thereafter, maybe on the 23rd but not in between.

the senate wasn't here and even though we tried to get them to appoint conferees prior to that, they weren't. on the 23rd is when we said, it's over. they weren't coming back and we ended up agreeing to the two-month extension, which leads us to here. my friend from new jersey talked about this should have been done by january 17. well, there's only one problem with that the senate didn't come back into session until the 24th of january. now the conferees could have met in that period. and in fact we would have met in that period. but frankly, there were members, probably from both parties and both houses, who were not available to meet and i know for sure in the senate, some of the conferees were not available to meet because they weren't exactly in the country. so that wasn't going to happen until we were both back in session. i believe the state of the union was tuesday, the 24th, i believe that's the day the senate came back. i may be off by a day.

but that's why this thing didn't start up. which is why in december we begged the senate, why don't we work this out december 23? why don't we work this out december 22, 21, 19, 18, go on back, we were ready. they chose not to and they had a big vote and of said, we're going to do two months, we'll see you at the end of january. here's where we are and i -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. walden: sure. mr. andrews: is the gentleman asserting the senate was in recess until the 24th. mr. walden: sure. mr. andrews: then he must support the president's appointment. mr. walden: we were not in rece