parts of the world, mr. speaker. if you go to many events in this town they'll generally have a southeastern state section and a florida section. florida's a little bit different than the rest of those southeastern states. we are constituents -- our constituencies may not look the same demographically, may not look the same on paper, but when it comes to caring about one another, i have no doubt that our communities are incredibly similar as the gentleman from florida and i are very similar. . and the debate is not about whether or not we have an obligation to our neighbors we do. the question is whether we're meeting our obligation to our neighbors, and i tell you we are not. the pathway up in this country is what our obligation is here. i would say to my friends that

providing a safety net that has and der out is a cruel unsatisfactory path for this house. i was talking with a gentleman down in southeast d.c., mr. speaker. he runs a project that takes folks from homelessness and drug addiction to employment, and he said the problem with you republicans is all you do is offer people hope. pick yourself up by your boot straps. tomorrow will be better than today. he said hope in the absence of access is futile. he said, but democrats offer help. if you're naked i'll clothe you. if you're hungry i'll feed you. he said help in the absence of a pathway out is to condemn omeone to a life of poverty.

he said what you all have to do is come together. you have to provide that to meet people's immediate needs but you have to provide that pathway out. mr. speaker, i don't care if you're rich today. i care whether or not the opportunity exists in america for you to be rich tomorrow and i don't mean rich by having six figures or seven figures or eight figures. i mean rich because you got a roof over your head and you can feed your family. the american dream, mr. speaker, is not to be the next bill gates. i don't know where that ever got started. the american dream is to be able by the sweat of your brow and the power of your ideas to be your own man or woman, to .ake your own decisions i listen deeply to the words of my friends and i look to where we might find that common

ground but, mr. speaker, i say to my friend from florida, if you go into any public housing facility in my district, they will tell you that the federal government prevents them from succeeding. the residents will say, you got to let us kick the bad actors out. the residents will say, we have folks here trying to make a difference and we have folks here who are bringing us down, and you got to give us the ability to keep our kids safe, you've got to give us the ability to keep our community safe, you've got to give us the ability to run our lives. but federal law says no, mr. speaker. federal law says we know what's fair. we know what's best. but i know the gentleman from florida and i share a heart for letting folks in these communities take control of their lives, make those choices that maybe tomorrow will be better than today. and mr. speaker, with this budget -- again, i can't -- i can't make this point sharply enough. the president proposes to spend

$6 trillion on interest alone over the next 10 years. $6 trillion. now, at the president's spending levels, mr. speaker, that's almost 18 months of running this country. understand that because of the borrowing patterns of past congresses and administrations, we are losing 18 months of the very services the gentleman from florida proposes that we provide. 18 months are eroded out of the next 10 years with interest alone. mr. speaker, one of the things the pro-growth budgeting act does, for example, is say you got to project out over 40 years. you remember when the president proposed his health care bill, no question his intention was to help folks. no question his intention was to make life better for folks. we can absolutely debate whether those were successes or failures, but this is the way

the budget sorted itself out. he said i am not going to spend more than $1 trillion on this program. i don't know when in the world, mr. speaker, $1 trillion became the low number that we decided would be tolerable as a program. he said, i don't want to spend more than $1 trillion on this program. and so instead of creating a 10-year program, he created a six-year program. put the implementation off for four years. critical health care services, absolutely necessary we provide these services to the american dream but -- people but they can wait four years. we have families that don't have options or choices. i won't help give you choices for another four years. $6 trillion. the pro-growth budget says we need to look at programs over the next four years because six-year llion, program, it may be money well spent. i hope the gentleman from florida believes. i know he supported the program. i don't think it's money well spent. i think we're losing trillions

of dollars in health care costs. i think we're losing trillions of dollars in care that could be provided to folks but is being lost in an inefficient health care system. but we don't have those answers when those bills come to the floor of this house for a vote. who is it that opposes that, mr. speaker? who is it that opposes when we make trillion-dollar decisions multigenerational, that we don't have access to long-term data? the gentleman from florida says to eems disingenuous for us say inflation doesn't exist. to pretend it doesn't, i think it is odd for it to stop in 10 years instead of continuing on in perpetuity as these programs do. these programs provides us with other information. i'll close by saying this, my experience in the house with a

voting cardigan in 2011. and while -- voting began in 2011. as while the gentleman from florida says the house can be eroding, my experience in the house and your experience in the house is we spent less in 2011 than in 2010. not more. inflation was there but we spent less. my experience, mr. speaker, is that we spent less in 2012 than we did in 2011. less in 2013 than we did in 2012. less than in 2014 than we did in 2013. every year i've been here, we've spent less. i think that's what our constituents expects from us, not to cut critical service programs but to increase our productivity and prioritize their dollars, prioritize their dollars to those places where they can do the most good. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would inquire and ask the speaker to inquire if my

colleague is prepared to close. i have no further speakers at this time, and i'm prepared to close. mr. woodall: i would say to my friend from florida, mr. speaker, i, too, am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has eight minutes remaining. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. r. hastings: my colleague -- 2013, they spent less, and he's correct. but in 2011, more people needed food stamps. n 2012, more people needed housing. in 2013, more people needed to get across safe bridges and safe roads. so i'm not sure where the train meets, and i agree with my colleague that he and i have more in common than we do

differences, but i hearken back to my earlier comments. he wants to spend or not spend on what he wants to spend or not spend and i want to spend or not spend on what i want to spend or not spend. i want to spend on roads. i want to spend on children's education. i want to spend on people who are hungry, and i believe he does as well, but you cannot do that if you keep cutting everything all the time. mr. speaker, these bills and chairman ryan's budget are nothing more than base attempts to rally the fringe of the republican party, and i stand steadfastly against each one of these attempts to drag us down a ryan road to ruin. to quote the great american poet, robert frost, i shall be telling this with a sign somewhere ages and ages hence, two roads diverged in a wood and i took the one less traveled and that has made all the difference.

mr. speaker, friends, today we stand before two roads. one a road to ruin, paved with cuts to hurt the poor and attack middle-class families simply put to protect the better off in our society, the real rich. the other a road that helps the poor extend out from poverty, ot a ladder out that has its ladder rungs with holes in it, as my friends discussed that ladder route. a road that helps the middle- class families help achieve their dreams. a road that helps our businesses and economy grow. a road that embraces our eterans and fights for them as vigorously they fought for us. as fort hood doesn't teach us, then i don't know what will. i believe this latter road

traveled by my fellow democrats and by me today will be the road less traveled. and this fact will certainly make a significant difference or the millions of americans fuelry trying to realize their -- fuelly trying to realize their dreams. if we defeat the previous question, i'll bring up a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, vote no on the underlying bill 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 with eight minutes to close. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: two paths diverged in the wood, and i took the

path less traveled and that has made all the difference. mr. speaker, this is washington, d.c. there's a term called washington, d.c., math, which as my friend from florida, the sheriff, described earlier when you can raise spending by $5 and call it a cut, that's washington, d.c., math. the path less traveled in this town is the path of fiscal responsibility. the path less traveled in this town is the path of accountability. the path less traveled in this town is the path of transparency. and that's what these three measures before us today propose, mr. speaker. i told a town hall meeting, mr. speaker, about 12 months ago. they asked if i was going to support the congressional pay raise. i said we're not going to do a congressional pay raise this year but i hope one day to come home and tell you i earned it. i do. i want to show up back home, mr. speaker, and tell folks, i earned it. be proud of what we've done in

washington, d.c. i've earned it. i think that's true of every dime of spending the federal government does. i don't think we ought to assume as the current baseline does that every single federal agency is going to have their budget increased next year by the cost of inflation. i think those agencies should come to this institution, as they do in an annual appropriation process, and say i've earned it. i've earned it. i'm not just talking about making a difference in people's lives. here are the results. i'm not just talking about lifting people up. here are the results. hardest thing to end in this town, mr. speaker, is a federal program. once they get started, they'll seem to last forever. mission creek, if they solve one mission they'll just adopt a new mission. roll right on down the line. no one wants to work themselves out of a job. it so outrageous, is it the

-- is it the role only of the fringe, as my friend from florida proposed, to suggest that if we are going to borrow and spend more of our children's money we should come and justify it? mr. speaker, if that kind of budget transparency has become relevant only to the fringe in america it's not the america i know. i tell the young people, i try to start every day back home with young people, mr. speaker. i say, just tell me what you want in terms of support for higher education because the only money i'm going to spend i'm going to borrow from you. i'm borrowing from you. we all love our children. we all want our children to succeed, but we're borrowing from them. every decision we make, these three bills ask for three things and three things only before we make the decision to borrow from our children. number one, pro-growth budgeting act.

it asks for those programs that are going to have a big impact on our economy, that we look not just at what the one-year impact is, not just at what the 10-year impact is but that we look at a generation of impact. before we start down that road less traveled, mr. speaker, we should know what it's going to cost us and how it's going to benefit us. . we don't get that information today, as the gentleman from florida, the we don't get that information today. we haven't reformed the budget act since 1974. that kind of multigenerational information is worthy of this body. this bill with provide to us for the very first time. fair cost accounting act. you're going to lend money, you ought to account for it. you ought to evaluate it. we ought to talk about our $17.5 trillion debt, mr. speaker. that comes from washington math.

because if we were anywhere else other than this town, we would have to evaluate all the promise that is we have made. you know how social security is funded, for example, mr. speaker, it's today's workers paying for today's retirees. there is not a dime setaside for today's workers when they retire. the true cost of government, the true national debt as recently is lated by a professor over $200 trillion. $200 trillion. trillion, we throw these words around as if they are nothing, that's a million millionths. we have not had a million days since the of christ, mr. speaker. e won't for another 730 years. the million millths is one trillion. we have borrowed and promised on behalf of our children $200

trillion. the fair value accounting request is only that we be honest with the american people. i'm prepared to live by whatever decision the american people make. i believe in our republic. but we cannot ask people to make decisions without providing people with good information. this bill does that. finally, mr. speaker, the bill again that my good friend, louie gohmert, long champion and i have the privilege of carrying in this congress, the baseline budgeting act. baseline budgeting act says, if you're going to raise spending by $1, you're actually raising spending by $1. i know it sounds radical, mr. speaker. i know it sounds like the fringe, but it's not. if you're going to raise spending by a dollar, dag gum it, mr. speaker, count have a

town hall meetings these days and talk about budget numbers without someone raising their hand and saying, rob, when you talk about spending reduction, is that really a spending reduction or reduction in the rate of growth? that's how it has -- that's how it has become. four years in this institution, we spent less each and every succeeding year. i would argue contrary to what my friend from florida suggested that we are prioritizing spending on shared goals, and we are deprioritizing spending on which we do not have those shared goals. it seems fair in these difficult economic times we are taking those dollars from hardworking american taxpayers across the country that we identify high priority spending and low priority spending. i take the work at the n.i.h. as i mentioned earlier, mr. speaker, that's high priority spending. that's very basic research. it's going to make a difference in people's lives. something rence in

minor, mr. speaker, but perhaps a life and death difference. it's a goal that we share. it's a goal the appropriations committee shares. it's a goal we'll be able to realize. but i don't think there's a single man or woman at n.i.h., don't think there is a single professor at n.i.h., i don't think there is a single ph.d. candidate at n.i.h. who is embarrassed to come up here and say i've done well. i am a good steward of the shirps' money. trust me again. -- taxpayers' money. trust me again. mr. speaker, that's where i want to take this with these budget bills. i want to have folks proud of how they are spending the dollars, proud to come share that with us here in congress and have the american people proud to get onboard with renewing those dollars once again. mr. speaker, i ask all of my colleagues to support this rule. this rule that's made in order every amendment that was germane to these three bills. ask them to support this rule so we can begin voting these bills this very day. with that, i yield 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. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. opinion pp, the ayes have it. tsh-in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 of the resolution. 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: the yeas are 218. the nays are 192.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222. the nays are 193. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from florida. recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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: the yeas are 220. the nays are 194. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on 1874.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 539 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. 1874. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1874, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the congressional budget act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 30 minutes. before the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, the house will come to order. he committee will be in order.

please cease conversations, carry all conversations out of the aisles and off the floor. please clear the well. again, the committee will be in order. please cease conversations, take conversations out of the aisles and off the floor so we can ommence. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr.

chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. before i begin i want to thank chairman ryan of the budget committee for his tireless work and activity, especially in the area of budget process reform. he understands as we all do that the budget process is broken. clearly by the results that we have had or have not had here in congress over the past number of years. also want to commend the budget staff and my staff for the work that they have done on bringing this bill forward and the work that they have done on the commonsense kinds of reforms that are necessary in the budget process. mr. chairman, this is a simple and a commonsense piece of legislation. what we do here has consequences . what we do in congress has consequences. some of them are good. some of them are bad. this amendment when adopted will allow us to have more information upon which to make

decisions here in congress. and this is especially helpful in the area of economic activity. economists from across the political spectrum agree that legislation considered by congress can have significant effects on economic growth. what happens in the real world? major legislation such as the tax reform legislation that's being discussed right now is likely to have longer term macroeconomic effects that will increase growth and as a result produce increased revenues, reduce spending, or some combination of the two. for example, congressional budget office, c.b.o.'s prior macroeconomic work has shown that deficit reduction has positive economic effects. and i quote from one of their reports. over the medium term and long term when economic output is determined by the supply of labor and capital and the productivity of those inputs, the reduction and federal borrowing that would result from smaller deficits would induce greater national saving and investment, and thereby increase

output and income. in another report, the congressional budget office concluded that, quote, higher marginal tax rates tend to discourage economic activity, unquote. now, while the current law that we operate under requires that the congressional budget office provide congress with information on the fiscal impact, what something costs, of all legislation reported from a committee, there's no systematic requirement for analysis of the economic impact, the realistic effects in the real world out there in the economy. this bill remedies that shortcoming. this bill would require that the congressional budget office provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for legislation that the c.b.o., the congressional budget office estimates would have a budgetary impact of more than .25% of the annual gross domestic product. that's about $43 billion. n addition, the bill would in addition, it would require

that they provide a statement of the sources of data underlying their investment. this sort of macroeconomic analysis would not replace the current work c.b.o. does but would provide a more important -- would provide more important information. i cannot imagine anyone in this house who doesn't want us to have more information. this is a simple, commonsense, bipartisan bill that we'll be talking about and voting on today. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i was interested to hear my colleague from georgia end his comments saying we should have more information rather than less. mr. van hollen: as i look at this legislation, on page three, they say they want more information on the dynamic

effects of different policies but specifically exclude, for example, the committee on appropriations. investments that we might make in our kids' education or investments we might make in other areas to power our economy. research and development, for example. and it's particularly interesting because the republican budget that was just released and voted on the other night in the budget committee, according to c.b.o., in the next couple of years, will create a drag on the economy. will hurt jobs in the next couple of years. why is that? that's in part due to the fact that they make deep cuts in parts of the budget for investment in research and development and other areas that help power our economy. so it's kind of interesting, mr. chairman, that they specifically excluded the c.b.o. from doing an analysis on that. a couple of my colleagues will

have amendments to the bill and if our republican colleagues don't somehow mean to ignore those important investments, hopefully they will join us in supporting those amendments. but you know, if you were the c.e.o. of a company, and you were projecting your growth and you were projecting your income, you would want to look at how much you were going to make from certain investments you're going to make in your work force and those kind of investments. but according to this bill, you don't want that. what this bill is after is simply to do an analysis primarily on a tax policy. it's motivated primarily by this idea that if you provide big tax breaks to people at the very high end of the income ladder, it will trickle down and lift up all the boats. everybody else. trickle down theory. we saw how well that works in the 2000's well, had big tax

cuts in 2001 and 2003. a few years later, for a variety of reasons, the economy tanked and you heard the former chairman of the federal reserve, who predicted that those tax cuts would generate growth, come back and say, you know, he was wrong. so i'm all for additional information and on that point, i want to say to my colleagues that on the most recent tax reform proposal that came out of the ways and means committee, you actually do have a number of scores from the joint tax committee. from our nonpartisan scorers. they have eight. they have eight scenarios. growth.ects .1% one projects 1.6% growth. that's of course the one that chairman camp ran with in all the information he put out but what he failed to mention was they came up with eight

scenarios and the reason they came up with eight scenarios was because they couldn't boil it down to say, this will be the dynamic impact of that particular legislation. because there are too many unknown variables. that's why they had eight. now, you want them to somehow come up with one, when they repeatedly have informed this congress that it depends so much on the different assumptions that you make, that you can't make one prediction on that kind of -- that kind of legislation. so i have troubles with this legislation for a variety of reasons. one being, when it comes to tax policy, we been informed by the experts that it's hard to pinpoint one number and boil it down to a growth figure and then, as i mentioned, my colleagues have left out the benefits of investing in things like infrastructure, things like

our kids' education, things like scientific research. so they're certainly not asking for more information when it comes to those important investments. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves, the gentleman rom georgia is recognized. mr. price: i urge my colleague to read the bill. this isn't about tax increases or tax decreases specifically. page four, the macroeconomic impact analysis, a change in the economic output, capital, stock, tax revenues, all in fact the kinds of things the gentleman points to in infrastructure or education. if they have an economic impact of greater than .25% of the gross domestic product they'd be evaluated and we'd get a report from c.b.o.o. on that i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from -- two minutes to the gentleman from utah, chris stewart.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stewart: thank you, dr. price, who is one of the bright lights here in congress for your leadership. imagine the c.e.o. of a business telling the board of directors he'd like to buy a new piece of commiment. -- equipment. unfortunately this equipment is expensive. but buying it, they will improve their cash flow and grow the business. that's a beautiful thing. but then imagine that the board of directors goes back to this c.e.o. and says, you have to consider the cost of this equipment, but you cannot consider the benefits of buying this piece of equipment. so it messes up entirely his profit projection. they're not able to consider the higher revenue and the growth of this company would undertake. that would be absurd. and of course that wouldn't be sound business decision. but that's exactly the situation that we find ourselves in right

now. congressional budget office does not have the ability to account for economic growth. specifically, the impact on g.d.p. when it comes from tax uts. c.b.o. is in the role of the board of directors telling the business owner in my example that it can't use the full tool kit of economic modeling in making projecks upon which to make the critical decisions. i have a degree in economics. i was a small business owner. i understand this isn't rocket science. the modeling -- modeling this is relatively simple. it's something we can do. we hurt ourselves when we don't allow us to take advantage of this modeling. there's something that members of both sides of the aisle can agree upon, it is that many times the numbers provided by c.b.o. are simply not accurate. this is a way that will fix that. part of the reason they object

frankly is that it underestimates the impact of tax cuts. mr. speaker, this is something that can help us make better decisions. i. -- i implore members to support it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from aryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman who just spoke mentioned important examples. if you're a c.e.o., you want to know then you buy a piece of equipment or capital what the economic dividend is going to be on that. but i go back to the fact on page three, our republican colleagues are asking for information on the economic growth impacts of all sorts of things but they specifically exclude anything that comes out of the appropriations committee and it's not a surprise because the congressional budget office in its analysis of the republican budget says that during the next couple of years,

it will actually slow down economic growth. in fact if you look at their proposal, it calls for deep cuts in important investments, c.b.o. says that will have a negative economic impact over the next couple of years so it's not surprising that they don't want that information provided as part of this analysis. i now yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, a member of the financial services committee, mr. foster. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. foster sprk thank you. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1874 and to explain to my republican colleagues, while their tax policies have -- why their tax policies have worked and will not work to produce economic growth and job. i'm a scientist who spent over 25 years at fermi national lab conducting research and a successful businessman before that. a scientist proceeds on the base -- basis of facts. the historical facts on the

republican tax policies are years. the clinton years, predicted by republicans to restrict economic growth, had the most unrestricted job growth in our lifetimes. then the bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 reversed those policies and in the following eight years the net number of new jobs was essentially zero. actually, slightly negative. 20 million americans entered the work force during the bush years and the republican policies produced zero net jobs for them. opening up a jobs gap on over 20 million jobs, a jobs gap that we are still closing today. so to the extent that there is a causal link between tax policies and job creation, the data is clear. republican policies have destroyed jobs and democratic policies have created them. i will now attempt to explain why this is and why the simplifies macroeconomic modeling promoted by this legislation will fail to match the real world.

generally speaking, democratic tax breaks deliver benefits to the middle class while republican tax breaks deliver benefits to the very wealthy. and as it turns out, the very wealthy spend and invest their money very differently than the middle class. mr. chairman, the macroeconomic models promoted in this legislation typically model our economy with a singling a gated consumer. like the republicans, they pretend that giving an extra dollar to a billionaire is no different than giving an extra dollar to a working class family. however if you give an extra dollar to a middle class family, they will spend it in the local economy, increasing local economic growth. or they will invest it in some of the highest return investments available to anyone. investing in their children's college education or perhaps buying a second car so that their spouse can get a job. now if you give that same dollar to a very wealthy individual, they will not change their spending habits because they are already spending as much as they

feel like spending and this will not change. so there will be no local economic growth. the investments of the very wealthy are also very different, since they no longer have available to themselves the high return investments of available to the middle class. the very wealthy have already spent everything they can to send their children to the finest schools, they already have seven cadillacs in their garages. so the marginal investments of the wealthy are intrinsically less productive due to a basic principal of -- principle of economics, the law of diminishing returns. since economic growth is equal investments times return on investments, the economic growth from channeling money to the wealthy is far less than the same relief given to the middle class. democratic middle class policies are pro-growth policies and republican policies are not. mr. chairman, there's also another important effect not captured by the single consumer macroeconomic models in this legislation which is the

increasing propensity for wealthy people to move their money offshore. if you give an ex--- an extra dollar to a wealthy person, they turn it other to their money manager who looks for high yields and increasingly invests it overseas, perhaps increasing the wealth of the investor but competing with and destroying american jobs. had that same dollar been given to middle class families, it would have been much more likely to stay in america. in the real world, republican policies trickle down but they trickle down to jobs in china. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another minute. mr. foster: that is why the bush tax cuts generated zero jobs in the eight years after they were enacted thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield phi minutes

to the chairman of the budget committee. the chair: the chair reminds the gallery they are here as guests and no public displays of outbursts are appropriate in the chamber. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the budget committee, an individual who knows well the imperative of reforming the budget process, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: i want to thank the vice chair of the budget committee for bringing this bill forward and his hard work on this issue. this bill is really pretty simple. it will help members understand how legislation affects the economy. under current law c.b.o. doesn't have to provide that kind of big picture analysis. it usual-l assumes the economy will stay the same no matter how much government taxes or spends. think about that. we all know that that is not true. people respond to incentives. federal policy changes the economy. under this administration, the economy has consistently failed

to meet expectations. this shows you the chart that c.b.o. has shown over the years where they have consistently lowed their economic outlook. this has had a huge effect on our budget and made balancing the budget that much harder. traditionally our economy has grown at about 3% a year. over the past four years it has grown only by 2% a year. it has grown less than half the average rate of other recoveries since world war ii. the labor force participation rate has fallen to 63%. that is close to the lowest level in over 35 years. 10.5 million americans are now unemployed. 7.2 million americans are working part tomb for economic reasons. and those who are working have seen meager growth in their wages. the typical household income for families have actually declined. in fact, it is the lowest level since 1995.

this weak recovery isn't something that just happened to us. it's not just by accident. it is clear that now that we are five years into this that the president's policies are weighing down the economy and hurting the budget outlook. the congressional budget office, they now expect us to take in much less revenue and that makes it harder to balance the budget because of this poor economy. since just last year the baseline deficit has grown by $1.2 trillion. the top line shows you last year's estimate. the bottom redline shows us this year's estimate. just from last year's estimate where the economy was heading to this year's estimate of where the economy is heading the congressional budget office tells us, $1.2 trillion in more deficits because of these failed economic policies. we want to stop the failure. we want to get this economy growing. c.b.o. knows that if you actually have better policy that actually grows the economy,

you'll help the budget. you'll help people get back to work. you help increase take-home pay. just as a weak economy can drag us into the red, a good budget can push the economy forward. that's why members need to know this before they vote on legislation. they need to know what the world might look like under a new law. it is common sense to ask how legislation will affect the economy. and this bill requires c.b.o. to give members just that estimate. we are asking c.b.o. to give the same kind of analysis that we use in our own budget. analysis provided by c.b.o. they find that deficit reduction like we are proposing will help the economy grow. in 2024, economic output will be 1.8% higher per person than it otherwise would be. that's about $1,100 per person. that's a pretty crucial piece of information. so we are adding to the tool kit. we are not taking anything away. and the criticism i'm hearing from others that gosh, you're not doing this on every piece of

legislation, you didn't do this for the appropriations process, do you have any idea how many thousands of estimates come from the appropriations committee? if you actually gummed up the works like that, you would bring this place and the estimating agencies to a screeching halt. that is why there is an important threshold here that it's for significant pieces of legislation. legislation that's a quarter of a point of the economy or higher so that we can be well informed on big pieces of fiscal policy, and that we don't gum up the works and bring this agency and this institution to a screeching halt. we think this hits the fine balance between the two. we think it's important that members of congress have a sense of how their vote will be affecting the economy. that's only common sense and i urge adoption of this bill. i thank the gentleman from georgia for bringing it to our attention. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. just to respond to the last point of the chairman of the

budget committee with respect to the appropriations process, as i indicated earlier this bill specifically exempts those pieces of legislation even if they meet the threshold with respect to the other legislation in here. and again it's perhaps not surprising. i think the american public knows that we have a short-term budget agreement. the murray-ryan agreement. if you look at the budget that republicans in congress are proposing, it calls for a 24% cut to the current services in the recent bipartisan legislation over the 10-year period. so let's just take one category of investments, in our kids. that means about an $18 billion cut in early education. it means about an $80 billion cut in k through 12 education. it means about a $205 billion cut in current policy higher

education. it calls for charging college students higher interest rates for the period of time when they are in college. that raises about $40 billion. at a time when that same budget doesn't ask for anything from the highest income individuals and doesn't raise one penny to he reduce the deficit from closing special interest tax breaks. so it's no surprise to me, mr. chairman, that they would want to exclude the economic impacts of those investments that they are dramatically cutting. and as i said earlier, c.b.o. in its most recent analysis of the house republican budget, it says it will slow down economic growth in the next couple years. so it's very interested that they don't want that quantified with respect to the appropriations bills. at the same time our republican

colleagues are saying they want more information, they specifically limit the information to certain areas. the other thing i want to mention, mr. chairman, is immigration reform. we want c.b.o. to give us analysis of when they have a specific bill if they can determine the economic benefit and impact of it, that's a good thing. and c.b.o. has done that. for immigration reform. in fact, of all the pieces of legislation that are before this house right now, one of the things that could have the most immediate benefit -- beneficial economic growth benefit is the bipartisan immigration bill before this house. the congressional budget office has looked at that. they say that will generate a lot more economic activity. in fact, they say that over the year 10 it will actually boost economic growth by 5% compared to what it would otherwise be. they say it will reduce the deficit in this 10-year window by almost $200 billion. and in a 20-year window by almost $1 trillion.

so that was an analysis that we all should benefit from. interestingly while that would provide great economic growth when democrats the other night proposed an amendment in the house budget committee to adopt that bipartisan immigration reform bill, which would generate economic growth based on c.b.o. reports, all of our republican colleagues voted no. we want more information. the more the better. but it needs to be information that the economists say that they can usefully provide us. i get back to the fact that when it comes to the tax reform proposal, for example, that chairman camp put in, they said that they couldn't narrow it down to one answer. they couldn't to one answer. they gave eight different models. based on different assumptions. so our republican colleagues are trying to say the professional economists, we don't care what you say, you come up with a

particular answer. and we think we should be asking for information in every case where it can be plausibly provided. unfortunately our republican colleagues don't want to -- it everywhere it can plausely be provided, because they want to exclude important investments in our economy and jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to a very productive member of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes -- california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding and kind words. mr. chairman, the question before the house is whether we are going to continue to ignore the economic consequences of the major actions that we take, or whether we are going to start recognizing that incentives matter. and if the legislation we pass has profound economic consequences, it must be taken

into account. why does am der stamm have the narrowest houses on earth? because they tax by street frontage. incentives matter. what happens to our revenues if we tax all of a person's $100,000 income? the static scoring on which we now exclusively depend says that that would raise us $100,000. but we all know the correct answer is that we would raise zero dollars because that person now has no incentive to work. macroeconomics gives us tools to anticipate the real world effect of major policy changes, and we ought not to be blind to them. it's not perfect. but it comes far closer to the mark than a static model that assumes that people are mindless atom tons whose behavior never varies. this measure doesn't presume to tell the c.b.o. how to do its job or what formula to use in its analysis, we will still get

all of the static scoring the same as before, but on major legislation that greatly impacts the overall economy, this bill says give us the complete picture. if a proposal is going to affect the economy by more than a quarter percent for good or ill, then tell us. tell us what you think and show us why you think so. for too long congress has blundered from one economic policy to another with its eyes wide shut. and it's time we got the complete picture and took into account the real world consequences of our actions. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: can i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 16 minutes. the gentleman from georgia has 17. and a half. mr. van hollen: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr.

chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i really want to thank the vice chairman of our budget committee for his leadership in trying to continually protect the working family budget from the onslaught of the federal budget. i'm a little bit in disbelief, mr. speaker, from what i hear on the floor. rarely has there been a more commonsense bill that has come to this floor. it simply says two things. as we make important legislative decisions in this body, we should have more information instead of less, and we should think longer term as opposed to shorter term, and yet it is opposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle. i'm somewhat incredulous. i would say my democratic colleagues don't want the information, maybe they don't

have to pay attention to the information. i have heard that, well, not all the information i want is going to come from this particular piece of legislation. i would encourage the distinguished gentleman from maryland to encourage his staff to provide him with the information that he wants. what's really important here, mr. speaker, is that we understand in an economy where millions, millions of our fellow countrymen are unemployed or underemployed, how major pieces of legislation will impact the economy. their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations as they lay awake at night wondering how they'll make ends meet. i just wonder, mr. speaker, if one of the reasons that our democratic colleagues are opposing this bill is because they know the congressional budget office has now told us that obamacare is going to cost this economy 2.5 million jobs that otherwise we would have had. what if we had that information

before the bill instead of after the bill? maybe the crown jewel would not have appeared. maybe they don't want the american people or members of congress to have that information. but the american people deserve this information, and on their behalf we demand it. we need to support this commonsense bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland continues to reserve? mr. van hollen: no. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i keep hearing our republican colleagues say they want the quote, complete picture, quote more information is better than less. we agree. which is why it's so interesting that they specifically include -- exclude information based on bills that come out of the appropriations committee that call for investments in our economy in areas that can help promote job growth, but they say they want more information but their bill says, well, they want it only in one area, and not in

another. and again, mr. chairman, i guess i'm not surprised, given the fact that the budget that the republicans just voted out of the budget committee, we expect to be on the floor next week, makes dramatic, historic cuts to important investments that this country has made in the past. fact, 40% below the largest investments that we made, excuse me, mr. speaker, 40% below the lowest investments as a share of the economy we've made since the 1950's. right? this country has been able to compete and been an economic power house in part because of the great investments we have made as a nation in important areas like science and research, in infrastructure, in education. and yet republicans in this bill want to exclude that and again it's not surprising because the

congressional budget office, the very entity they say they want to provide us this analysis has said over the next couple of years, their budget will slow down the economy and economic growth in part because of the cuts they make in this one areas of the budget they don't want information about. surprise, surprise. i now yield four minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the state of texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished ranking member and let me thank the manager of this bill. i want to associate myself with mr. van hollen's analysis and add some other thoughts. we are on the floor today, today is april 4, and might i make mention of two points that are not particularly related but i do want to again acknowledge the men and women at fort hood, texas, i was there in 2009 to

mourn with those families, today i mourn as well. with those who -- those families whose loved ones have lost their lives and those who suffer. it is important for us to, as a nation, be responsive to their needs and i know that we will do so in a bipartisan manner. i also want to make mention that today is the date of the assassination of one of the greatest peacemakers in the world, dr. martin luther king jr. and beside his concern for those who did not have equal rights, he was also an economist to the extent that his advocacy was to extinguish poverty. the last days of his life were spent in planning the poor people's march in 1968 to raise the income and to raise the quality of life of men and women across america. so i rise to raise the question

of where we are in 2014. now this is not a conversation that we easily engage, mr. van hollen, with our friends on the other side of the aisle, but to my knowledge, in your passing of the budget resolution, the process that you're in, to my knowledge, there was no effort to include an increase in the minimum wage, there was no effort to ensure that 164,000 persons in the state of texas would get unemployment insurance extension, thereby ceasing to lose their homes or be evicted from their rental properties or literally be able -- not be able to support their family. now we have on the floor of the ouse legislation that simply exacerbates the circumstance of those who are aspiring to be in the middle class. because it is a push toward

dynamic scoring. dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the microeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen and continue to pop up everywhere. in fact, even in the negotiations of joint select committee on deficit reduction, also known as the super committee, which by the way, with no condemnation, did not work. could not get a common ground. and you would wonder why republicans are pushing this pro dynamic score bill, because they claim the traditional cost estimates prepared by the c.b.o. are not enough. when we viewed the congressional -- used the congressional budget office for decades and it's been an effective tool to balance between revenue and test you wonder why the tie namic scoring comes because it breaks the back of poor people and the middle class. we believe it is simply an attempt to force congress and the c.b.o. to accept this con set -- concept of dynamic

scoring and promote our efforts, or the efforts of the republicans to again give more tax cuts. we know that tax cuts did not work and the good intentions -- in the good intentions of the bush administration. those tax cuts put us in the predicament, after leaving the clinton administration with billion-dollar surplus. and the ability to invest in infrastructure. and i remember the smiles on the lips of citizens during that time frame that the economy was churning but in the -- can i have 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: in the context of this particular legislation, a budget bill led by mr. ryan has now given $200,000 tax cut already in the budget bill to those who hold most of the wealth.

but yet cutting medicaid, cutting food stamps, to give an opportunity for soldiers' families to be able to eat. i'm against this bill because i think c.b.o. has an effective structure to give us the information we need. and cutting taxes is not going to move america forward to be the greatest nation in the world with research, with infrastructure rebuild, education -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia for this -- for this commonsense piece of legislation. mr. speaker, to hear the debate on the floor this morning, you would think that we are arguing about a budget, mr. ryan's budget. you would think that we would be arguing about increases in taxes

or decreases in taxes, but indeed we're debating more information to make informed decisions, mr. speaker. it has nothing to do with those. and to raise those is -- there will be a time to debate the new budget. but this is about job creation, mr. speaker. and this is about the c.b.o. and the flawed method, many times, that they use in preparing documents for us to make informed decisions. i'll give you a prime example. we had c.b.o. come in and talk to us about energy policy. and they come in and they talk about energy policy and i said, well if we go and we start to tax some of our natural resources, that we can lower gas prices for those people that are having to fill their tanks and having to make decisions between food on the table and gas in their tank, we tax that, what would be the impact?

they say, oh, you would get a negative c.b.o. score. how could that be? if we had revenues from that, it would create $1.7 trillion over 10 years. trillion with a t. and yet what we have, somehow is a justification, he says,well we're making the assumption that you've already tapped that. well, now, when you have that kind of logic as a business guy, you can't make correct decisions. this is about job growth, mr. speaker. we lost 400 jobs in the last 48 hours in my district. that's 400 families that are going to have to start to worry about putting food on the table. mr. speaker, we need to get behind this and have the informed decisions that we can make, good decisions, on legislation going forward. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i ask one more time if our republican colleagues want information to make informed decisions, why did they specifically exclude one whole category of information based on legislation coming out of the appropriations committee that makes important investments that can help our economy grow? they say they want all this additional information but apparently they don't. again, say it's not surprising because some of the changes that the republican budget makes in that area do, according to the congressional budget office, create a drag on the economy in the coming few years. so again, you're going to have an amendment later on offered by mr. connolly and he'll talk about at that point, to find out if our republican colleagues really do want full information. but at least in the current form of this bill, they don't. so with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield

two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank congressman price for his hard work in the committee, the budget committee's hard work to try to give us better information as members of this body. you know, families and small businesses back home didn't need to read today's jobs report to know that this isn't the strongest recovery. they know that with washington's $17 trillion of debt, it's not hard to see why our economy isn't creating enough jobs. hoosiers understand the problem, but they wonder if washington even cares. republicans owe taxpayers a clear plan to tackle the debt and jump start the economy with the private -- with private sector job growth. that's why my colleagues and i are offering a commonsense reform to washington's broken budget process. we have to force the federal government to take an honest look at how its policies affect

americans struggling in this real economy. it's not too late to save the american dream from a future of debt and decline but we have to do that work now. we owe taxpayers a clear vision for how we can force washington to stop spending money we don't have and make ends meet without raising taxes. that starts with reforms like the pro-growth budgeting act. i thank the budget committee for their hard work and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. as an original co-sponsor i'm grate to feel congressman dr. tom price for his leadership on this important issue. it's no secret that washington's budget process is broken.

the other $17 trillion debt jeopardizes our national fiscal security and threatens future opportunities for our children and grandchildren. i appreciate house budget committee chairman paul ryan and his work to produce a path forward that restores prosperity and makes substantial reductions to our debt over the next 10 years. for far too long congress has passed bills without a full understanding of how policies will affect jobs and our economy. the congressional budget office, the body we as lawmakers depend on to provide fiscal and economic impacts of all legislation, has a bad track record of providing information due to significant loopholes. house republicans have made meaningful strides in restoring fiscal accountability and responsibility become to washington. we recognize as the county chronicle promotes, it's the taxpayers' money, not money the government allows citizens to

hold temporarily. providing the c.b.o. with the a necessary tool kit to determine the fiscal impact on every aspect of our economy is a step in the right direction. take obamacare, seeing its failed implementation which has destroyed jobs proves we must see how a law will impact job creators and how families spend harderned paychecks. i urge my colleagues to give the c.b.o. likely consequences that may occur. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina yields become. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the c.b.o. provides lots of information right now. i hope all members of congress will take advantage of the information they provide. we've now heard for the second time today that the affordable care act has cost the economy jobs. the c.b.o. looked at that. they studied it. they gave the congress information just like our colleagues are asking for. they didn't say that it had any

negative job impact at all right now. they said in the out years, they said in the out years that now that people are able to go into exchanges to afford health care, that people may decide to not go to a job where the job had been the only way to get taxpayer benefited health care. right? under our current system, if you want a tax benefit for your health care if you want preferential tax treatment on your health care, where do you go? you go to a job. that is where the tax benefit comes from. as a result of the affordable care act, people now can get a tax credit and go into the exchange. so they can decide to launch a business from their home. and get health insurance without having been locked into another

job which had been the only place they got tax benefited health care. . i encourage my colleagues to read the c.b.o. reports that have already been issued on the affordable care act. i also urge them to read the c.b.o. reports that have already been issued on the recovery bill. because the congressional budget office has indicated that as a result of the recovery bill the economy actually saved millions of jobs. that that helped the economy from falling farther and farther. remember, when president obama was sworn in, we were losing 800,000 jobs every month. and the recovery bill helped stop that free fall and turn that around. that's what the congressional budget office said. the nonpartisan congressional budget office. so it's great our colleagues are asking the congressional budget office for more information. we welcome that. it would be great if they read the information the congressional budget has already issued.

i just want to make one final point, mr. chairman, and i have made it before, but it's important because we keep saying we want more information, more complete information. and if you read this legislation, it says that. then it says excess. we tsh-except, we don't want any information on the job impact of those parts of our budget that invest in jobs in our economy. like r&d and places like n.i.h., national institutes of health, like our kids' education. we want all the information but don't tell us about the benefits of those investments. i wonder why? it's because the republican our investments n those areas. i reserve the balance of my ime.

the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the pro-growth budgeting act of 2013. i thank dr. price for his leadership on this issue. now, this you shall shoe may strike many americans as somewhat arcane, but it has very important and real world implications for our nation's economic growth, for job creation, and for wage levels. under current law when legislation is introduced, our budget office is prevented from taking into account how individual americans will actually respond to that legislative proposal. so our budget office has to produce this artificial sort of analysis. failing to accurately estimate the true costs or benefits of a given proposal. this obscures for policymakers, for members of the media, and for many rank and file americans the true negative impact that tax hikes can have on our

nation's economy, on the private sector, and so forth. it fails to recognize how tax cuts can actually stimulate the very work, savings, and investment that lead to jobs, higher wages, and a secure retirement. mr. young: so the price bill takes an important first step to eliminating c.b.o.'s unrealistic economic analysis by requiring c.b.o. to apply real world analysis of the impact a proposal will have on our nation's economy. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia who will be offering an amendment later, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend from maryland. listening to the debate on the floor, one feels one is living

out an "alice in wonderland" chapter. my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to repeat their orthodoxy that slashing taxes and slashing spending -- under previous administrations, and led to the most ruinous economic performance since the great depression. now they want to sell us a budget once again that slashes $5 trillion in investment. this is actually disinvesting in america. it's disinvesting in research and development. it's disinvesting in human capital. it's disinvesting in education. it's disinvesting in infrastructure. oiler handing over our future with this budget and this philosophy to our world

competitors. and somebody is going to have to stand on this floor 20 years to that explain generation how a great congress handed over a future to a foreign competition. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute and a half. mr. olson: i thank my friend from georgia. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of a commonsense budget proposal. the pro-growth budget act of 2014. this bill is genius. it's simple. and it's darn important. it requires the congressional budget office to analyze the macroeconomic impacts of major bills before they pass congress. what a concept. this tool will give congress and the american people a real world

picture of how the laws we pass impact our economy before we pass them. c.b.o. will provide congress with information on fantasyland on the fiscal impact of legislation. there is no requirement to stay in our world and analyze the onomic impact of legislation of jobs. so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that such scoring is impossible. yet they proudly tout that c.b.o. use a macroeconomic analysis is to report on the impact of the senate's immigration bill last year. they left fantasyland, joined our world. welcome. the more information we have about the economic impacts of bills, the better decisions we can make. mr. chairman, a simple but poor

policy change like this will help get our economy back on track, create jobs, and protect hardworking americans and keep us in their world. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i was glad the last speaker mentioned the c.b.o. report on immigration reform. i just wish if they really would o have a, they adopt the bipartisan immigration legislation that the c.b.o. wrote about, because what the port said is that would be a great boost to economic growth

in our country. it would create more jobs. it would create more economic activity as i said because it would generate more economic activity and more prothe growth revenue it would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years $120 5 billion and almost trillion. i haven't heard a response to this, but we want more information, c.b.o. does reports all the time, but they have this big except. we want more information except we don't want information about this part of our budget that deals with important investments and our future. as mr. connolly said, a lot of our economic competitors have been copying successful models from the united states. for example the chinese are trying to hire more scientists in the areas of biomedical yet the republican budget, if you apply across-the-board cut, 27% for the amount of research at n.i.h. that was in the ryan-murray document. again not surprising they don't want the congressional budget office to look into detail at that. when the congressional budget office looked at the budget that just came out of the budget

committee the other night, which will be on the floor next week. they said over the next couple years these fiscal policies below the e output levels comprow pro-jected. translation, it would reduce economic activity and reduce job growth over the next couple years. not surprising in the legislation before us pro-growth budgeting, our republican colleagues don't want the c.b.o. to tell us about the pro-growth benefits of those important investments. i reserve the balance of my ime. mr. price: my may i inquire to the time remaining? he chair: yes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 6 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 1 1/1/4 minutes.

mr. price: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i rise today to offer my support for the pro-growth budgeting act and i thank dr. price for his leadership on this issue. this simple legislation would require the congressional budget office to provide a full analysis of major legislation so that we know how bills will impact our economy and our nation's employment. it appears today that democrat opposition to this bill seems to indicate their satisfaction with the anemic job growth. historic $17 trillion debt and growing. no attempt to balance our budget and devastation of the middle class. before congress even considers passing another legislative overhaul like the dodd-frank or stimulus or president's health care law, let's understand exactly how these 1,000-page

bills will impact our economy and potentially result in lost jobs and lost futures. as we craft fiscal policy to get our economy back on track, and improve the livelihoods of our constituents, i would ask my colleagues, is it better for us to have more information or less? understanding or ignorance? reality or spin? supporting the pro-growth budgeting act is a commonsense step that will help us judge the long-term impact of legislation. i urge my colleagues to join me in support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. you thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding. it's time to end the budget games in washington, d.c. and this bill is one way to

bring more accountability and more honest budgeting to washington. four years ago when the president's health care law was passed, it included a number of budget gimmicks. so that it appeared to be cheaper than it really was. the gimmicks included collecting premiums for 10 years, but only paying benefits for five. delaying some provisions to the year 11, 12, or 13. we need commonsense budgeting like the rest of america has to budget. the pro-growth budgeting act simply allows the congressional budget office to take a policy proposal and measures its impact on future growth. and understand that also means future generations. that way we can tell if it's a good or a bad policy. and make more informed decisions. some people really don't want to do that. this bill is about doing what's right for the next generation. no more passing the buck.

let's bring realistic budgeting and accountability to washington, d.c. let's pass this bill today. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from georgia -- the chair wishes to make a clarification on the time left. the gentleman from maryland has 1 3/4 minutes left. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i know i sound like a broken record but our colleagues keep saying they want more information but the bill specifically includes--- excludes major information. i now yield the balance of our time to close to a terrific new member of the budget committee, mr. jefferies of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. jefferies: i thank the distinguished gentleman from maryland. i rise in opposition to this bill. dynamic scoring as contemplated in this legislation is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. it is a desperate attempt to revive a failed theory and trickle down economics that has

been widely discredited by academics, but more importantly has been discredited in practice. let's look at a side by side comparison. eight years under bill clinton, he raises the top tax rate to 39.6%. and 20.3 million jobs are created. george bush comes into office, e lowers the top tax rate from 39.6% to 35% and what happens? does the economy grow? did the rich invest more in the economy? does it take off? no. we lose 650,000 jobs. dynamic scoring is designed to revive a theory that's hurt the american people when put into practice by republican congress and george bush. we should be investing in job training, investing in education, investing in transportation and infrastructure. investing in research and development. investing in technology and

innovation. instead of trying to promote progress for the greatest number. this budget, this bill this republican majority is simply trying to protect prosperity for the few and that's why we should reject this bill. yield back. mr. many price: i'm prepared to close if the gentleman's yielded back. the chair: the gentleman's time expired. mr. price: i have to admit i'm puzzled. all this bill does is say that members of congress ought to have more information about the decisions that we're making here on behalf of the american people, not less. that's a pretty simple concept in the real world. only here in washington do we not want more information. i guess we ought to stick our head in the sand. the gentleman who just spoke said this bill's purpose is to

trot out and continue to put in place a failed theory this bill doesn't do anything about the outcome of the results that c.b.o. would give us under this bill. we don't game the system at all. want that. we had a scientist take the floor and say he was against using more information. a scientist. can say i never met any physician who didn't want more information. people want as much informing as they can so they can make wise decisions. that's what this bill would do. give us more information so that hopefully, hopefully congress would be able to make more wise decisions.

i'm also, i'm puzzled by the gentleman from maryland who stands up over and over and talks about the benefits of dynamic scoring on a particular piece of legislation that he supports but that he doesn't -- then he doesn't want dynamic scoring or macroeconomic analysis on legislation on anything else. just what he supports. talk about being duplicitous, mr. speaker, i'll tell you. e keeps talking about slow growth, he says over the next few years. he doesn't want to talk about the out years where the growth explodes and we have the pro-growth economy and getting people back to work and the jobs being created. mr. chairman, this is pretty doggone simple. either we want more information or we don't. republicans in this house at this point want more information. in the senate, a

similar piece of legislation was voted on in a bipartisan way. the senate in a bipartisan way supported that amendment. so i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, to stand up today and say yes to the american people, we want more information so that hopefully we're able to make more wise decisions and i urge adoption of the underlying piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. all time for general delate -- debate has expired. bill nt to the rule the will be considered for amendment. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report. each such further amendment will be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debated for the time

specified in the report, with the time equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is in order to consider amendment number one printed in part bambings of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. connolly: i have an amendment that the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house i olution 539, the gentleman listen to my friend from georgia, and do i agree with him.

mr. connolly: i assume the gentleman will support my amendment to correct what must have been a mistake in the republican majority's bill on page three. because knowing my friend's commitment to full information available to the public and members of congress, i can't imagine line 16 got it right. it must be a typo. it says here, yeah, dynamic coring by c.b.o. except -- except the committee on appropriations of each house. think about what that means, mr. chairman. every single appropriations bill, the entire funding of the federal government is exempted. i thought my friends wanted full disclosure. i heard my friend talk about the parallel with the medical rofession.

no doctor wants to leave out key information about a client. it could be life or death. no less than here in the house of representatives. i would say in response to my friend from georgia, i have a simple but important amendment to ensure that the broader economic analysis required by he bill. bill as currently drafted, it exempts all appropriations bills. i know some of my friends don't want to acknowledge that, but funding purchases, purchasing ships for the navy, a few examples in which we invest taxpayer money have a stimulating effect on the economy. 26,000 construction jobs are created with $1 billion. it's estimate wed invest in transportation infrastructure. in addition the flovet spent $13 billion other the past 25 years supporting the human gee noem project that $13 billion federal

investment has, it's estimated, had a receipt to it of $780 illion and counting. we have received at the point where we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. investments have returned on them. whatever the cost, it was worth every penny. eisenhower said investment in infrastructure, in the highway system, whatever the cost, it's a gift that keeps on giving. it's a -- an invest that continues to return to this day. let's make sure we have full dynamic scoring for all appropriations bills in the spirit my friend from georgia

has laid down and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the senior member of the appropriations and budget committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. cole: i thank my friend, thank the chairman for the time. i rise in opposition to the amendment. if i did not know my friend from virginia as well as i do, i would have had detected a little ense of sarcasm in his remarks but i know that's not think case, i know it's a sincere proposal. i must say as chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the c.b.o., i'm pretty familiar with its operations, resources and capabilities. the simple fact of the matter is that the amendment would create an unsustainable amount of work

for the c.b.o. for no benefit in new or additional information to the congress of the united states. by arbitrarily picking a billion-dollar threshold for the analysis, this amendment would force c.b.o. to conduct analysis on dozens of additional bills. c.b.o. director elmendorf wrote to chairman ryan yesterday to explain the limits of their capability and capacity. let me quote from his letter. quote, the c.b.o. would not be able to perform theage sess envisioned by that set of amendments. we do not have the analytical capabilities of the -- or the level of staffing that would be needed to undertake and complete the task that would be assigned to us, nor would the usual timetable for considering legislation allow the time that would be required to complete such analysis. even if we did not face those analytical and staffing constraints. the time that it would take the c.b.o. to produce these dditional estimates as showing no discernable impact would

delay congress' legislative work at both the committee level and on the floor. the simple fact is, the amendment is unworkable -- unworkable and ill conceived and i urge its rejection. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i would inquire how much time is remaining on our side. the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. connolly: let me say, mr. chairman, i have the utmost respect and he knows it of my friend from oklahoma. no sarcasm was meant. but he might forgive me for being shocked at a speech i took certainly at face value about the need for full information and then a carveout explicitly n the law, the draft law, that exempts all appropriations. if my friend feels that it's too much work for the c.b.o., with this threshold, then let's name

a threshold. but his threshold in this bill is zero. there will be no dynamic score big c.b.o. on any appropriations. i think that's not serving the american people well. i don't think that's full disclosure. i don't think that's transparency in government. i don't think that's good government. andic that suggests we have something to hide around here -- and i think that suggest we was something to hide around here. that's the spirit of my amendment. full disclosure. and i'm sorry if it means that c.b.o. has to work harder. but we need full disclosure for our citizenry and that's what this amendment does. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yield back. the time for debate is concluded. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask for a recovereded vote. -- for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in part b of house report 113-400. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. israel: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in house report 113-400, offered by mr. israel of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. israel: my amendment is simple. it would direct c.b.o. to analyze the impact of our major bills here in congress on some of the nation's most critical institutions, our state and local governments and state and local taxpayers. the state budget crisis task force is co-chaired by the former lieutenant governor of the state of new york, richard ravage and paul volcker. they spent a great deal of time analyzing the impacts of what we

do here on state and local governments and taxpayers. what did they find? they find that fiscal strength runs downhill and often local taxpayers are the recipients of that stress. everything we do here in congress or everything we don't do has significant implications for levels of government and local taxpayers. but no mechanism exists at all to assess the fiscal impact of federal actions on those taxpayers. i'm offering this amendment today because if we're going to analyze how our fiscal actions affect the economy, we need to make sure we're not just pushing off the hard decisions to local taxpayers. let me give you an example. the budget offered by mr. good friend, the gentleman from wisconsin, the republican budget, cuts over $50 billion from road repair and infrastructure investments. and so the implication of that budget is that the federal government does less but local taxpayers have to pay the bill

to fill in the potholes. that's fundamentally wrong. that's a wrong priority. we have to stop this position where we are cutting taxes or spending here, only to increase taxes and spending in our local communities. we can't keep pushing off these costs and the accompanying uncertainty surrounding this funding. that's why my amendment is so important, mr. chairman. it would tell us we are actually being fiscally responsible at all levels. or are we simply moving costs from one level of government to the other? i hope my friends support this amendment. we all represent not just federal taxpayers but local taxpayers and we should protect the interests of both. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition.

how it affects state and local governments, far too often we in washington decide we're smarter than everyone else and choose to impose burdens on those governments that are closer to the people. frankly, far too many of us here in congress simply don't take the principle of federalism seriously. in fact, this is such a great idea that a republican congress passed it and a democratic president signed it into law in 1995. it's called the unfunded mandates reform act or more popular, umra. it requires c.b.o. to analyze every piece of legislation and how it burdens every state. in 1995, the umra was enacted to ensure that the congress receives information during the legislative process about federal mandates, requirements that would be imposed on state, local and tribal governments and on entities in the private sector. so as with this amendment we'll

debate, the job's already done. and with the next amendment, the job's already done. the issue is already addressed. so i appreciate the gentleman's interest in the issue but there's simply no need for the amendment and consequently we will have to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. israel: i thank the chair. two responses to my friend from georgia. number one, the law that he cites does not analyze the impact of budget and tax decisions that we engage in here in washington, d.c. so the gentleman's response, with all due respect in the world, is wrong. secondly, i do find it ironic that there's that this entire debate has focused on the need for more information. i heard them talk about the need for a complete picture except when it comes to local taxpayers, we don't want that information. we don't need to see that picture. we will continue to pass legislation and pass the bill to those local taxpayers.

so for all the high-minded speeches that we hear from my friends about the need to protect the taxpayers, opposing this amendment essentially says to the taxpayer, you foot the bill for the decisions we make here. so we talk about cutting taxes and we put out press releases and we pat ourselves on the back of cutting federal taxes and cutting spending when what we're doing is stabbing local taxpayers in the backs with those decisions. with that i close, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. israel: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. israel: chairman. on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment in amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-400.

for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. 3 clerk: amendment number printed in part b of house resolution 400. -- house report 113-400. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 539, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. cicilline: my home state of rhode island continues to be plagued with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, currently 9%. while most members would agree that the best way we can address this jobs crisis is to pass legislation that gets our economy growing more quickly, we clearly have different ideas on how best to achieve such growth. but we will have that important conversation in great detail next week as the house is scheduled to consider the republican budget authored by chairman ryan and the substantive alternatives on the floor. today, however, we have a bill that modifies the budget

process. specifically, this bill changes the rules that our independent umpire, the congressional budget office, uses to determine the costs of implementing major pieces of legislation defined as those impacts gross domestic product by more than approximately $40 billion. and while your new rules would supplement, not replace, scoring rules, let's make clear. the dynamic scoring that is called for in the bill is something my colleagues and i on this side of the aisle have serious concern as it relies on more uncertain and analytical principles, procedures and assumptions than what the congressional budget office currently utilizing for scoring the cost of legislation. so what my colleagues across the aisle pursue of what they believe is an ideal set of scoring rules, i rise to have a more targeted and specific picture about the impact pending legislation will have on jobs in our community. the amendment i offer does not

change your desired dynamic scoring analysis. it merely requires production of a separate estimate using c.b.o.'s existing analytical principles and procedures of the number of jobs that would be created, sustained or lost, including regional and state level estimates when practicable for the same proposals my colleagues wish to score using their preferred set of rules. keep in mind this is not a partisan set of pick and rolls. this is part of the job scores act, received bipartisan support in both chambers. so i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make sure that members of congress are fully prepared to conduct their due diligence and have the most complete understanding possible of how the major bills considered in congress impact jobs in our communities. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from georgia rises to claim time in opposition and is recognized

for -- mr. woodall: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from georgia rises to claim time in opposition and is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: i believe we've made a difference in the short time we've been here. we need to make sure we have jobs estimates coming out of legislation which is why i'm so proud as drafted this bill, introduced by my friend from georgia, dr. price, requires, and i quote, employment and labor supply analysis in subsection b. now, that's incredibly important, mr. chairman, because what we do in washington absolutely has consequences. and what those consequences are, it's a fair subject of debate here in the chamber. but today there is no mechanism for determining, again, employment and labor supply numbers on a dynamic basis over time, recognizing what those actions are. now, my concern about the amendment from my friend is that rather than scoring those

jobs dynamically, again, understanding that for every action there is a reaction, it scores aness at that timic methodology, assuming -- estatic methodology, assuming they can create a job. short of putting someone on the federal payroll, this amendment perpetuates the myth that the government is in the job creation business. the government is absolutely in the job destroying business, and we both work together on that facet. and we can make some decisions that help the private sector to succeed. it is those decisions, mr. speaker, that the bill, as drafted, will make sure are measured, recorded and reported here on the house floor for the first time. again, i very much appreciate the intent of the gentleman to make sure this congress is focused like a laser on job creation but scoring it as if

the government is creating jobs instead of recognizing it is only our actions in the private sect -- the private sector is being impacted on would take what is a very good underlying bill and move it in the wrong direction. with that i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank my colleague for his kind words. i think he's actually missing the point. the dynamic scoring in fact does allow you to assess the employment impact. obviously we think it does that through a tainted lens because such analysis will be subjected and uncertain. it doesn't impact that at all. that remains in the bill. this simply adds a provision that would require an analysis be done under the traditional methods that the c.b.o. uses. it will ensure that c.b.o. conducts the same kind of analysis of jobs impact when using the static methods currently used by c.b.o. and we can and should do both, and the fact of the matter is

this is an opportunity to be sure that we have as much information as possible about the impact of the actions that we take on job creation, on the ability to sustain or cost jobs. and in fact, providing this amendment will only ensure that that analysis happens in both places. you have recognized in the underlying bill that jobs impacts matter. we agree. but let's not limit that information. let's make sure there is a jobs impact both in the static analysis done by c.b.o. as well as in your new provision for dynamic scoring. let's have an analysis in both of them side by side. it will provide a full picture of the potential range of likely employment effects in our communities and we certainly have a responsibility to understand that, to deal with as much information we can about the impact on jobs. there is no more urgent issue, and we've heard lots of conversations this morning of how important it is we have good data, good information. this simply supplements. let's make sure that analysis happens in both places at the

c.b.o. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. all time for debate has ended, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. the question -- it's now time to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-400. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-400 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 539, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment is straightforward but one i think is important to consider. simply put, my amendment requires the congressional budget office to review and

report on the accuracy of dynamic scoring estimates five fiscal years after any dynamical aally scored bill is enacted. very -- dynamically scored bill s enacted. however, as we've heard during this debate, the use of these estimates is controversial. there is a body of opinion that says this type of scoring is legitimate and there is a body of opinion that asserts this type of scoring undermines the budget process and produces highly uncertain projections. my amendment would provide a way to follow up on estimates performed under h.r. 1874 and helps shed light on whether those estimates in fact offered accurate data. i will confess that i for one remain skeptical of dynamic scoring, but if we proceed in this vain and enact dynamic scoring, i think having the accountability put in place by

having the c.b.o. come back to congress with information on whether the actual economic impact of certain legislation turns out to be in fact accurate would be very helpful and helping us assess whether or not this particular form of scoring is in fact legitimate and fact-based. so mr. chairman, i urge support for this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. although i don't oppose the amendment, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i yield to the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: looking at the amendment it makes sense. i think it's important we reassess these models to make sure we're getting it right. people call it dynamic scoring. i like to call it reality-based scoring. i think the gentleman's amendment makes sense and we accept it. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the time. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: i thank the majority for accepting the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time as well. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-400. for what purpose does the -- lewoman from texas

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in house report 113-400, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 539, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. again, i rise with the spirit of cooperation and recognition that

there are definitive distinctions and differences of opinion on the underlying legislation. i'm trying to make this bill better. my amendment requires the congressional budget office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, if this bill passed, estimates of the potential impact if any, on h.u.d. zone areas as designed by the small business act. my amendment seeks only to look at thesket on h.u.d. zones. in actuality this bill could be very well entitled the scoring or dynamic scoring bill. if that is the essence of it, we need to find the impact of it. dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the microeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen. we want to know in the defined areas that deal with underserved

areas all around america in everyone's state, whether or not there is an impact on these important areas. i believe that dynamic scoring has an impact on the outreach and the funding that we have to support the concept of a h.u.d. zone and therefore my amendment is clear in its effort to make sure that those particular areas are in fact impacted. the small business administration administers several programs to support small businesses including the underutilized zone. they asserted that tax cuts would increase revenue in a sort of trickle down budgeting. but the question is, the smaller businesses attempting to thrive and impacted by the small business administration program,

how would this type of structure impact them? the hub zone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities. that, mr. chairman, is an important responsibility but it's important -- it's an important goal for this nation for we know that small businesses can help generate any number of jobs and the assistance i know personally to small businesses have been effective and productive. with that, i would ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i want to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and recognizing the value and importance of economic analysis for legislating here in congress. too often we hear from the other side of the aisle these taunts about magic asterisks and phony numbers but your amendment rightly recognizes that legislation can make a difference on the economy.

however, what we can't accept about the amendment is the idea that c.b.o. should try to estimate its effects on only small sections of the country rather than the nation as a whole. instead of dictating every detail of the macroeconomic analysis for c.b.o., we feel we need to give them the flex to believe the adapt -- adapt their analysis. this amendment would limit that ability. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from florida has yielded back. ms. jackson lee: let me yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, many van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank my colleague, ms. jackson lee. we heard from our colleague all morning that they want more

information, a more complete picture of the impact of legislation on our economy. the legislation before us as we pointed out repeatedly today exempts all the part of the budget that deals with investments in discretionary spending. so -- and then they said no to amendments on the impact on jobs they said no to getting more information on the impact of state and local governments and local taxpayers and now they're saying no to getting more information on vital portions of our economy. this doesn't say the c.b.o. cannot look at other things, it just says it's important that they look at this part of the economy, these are hub zones in every part of the country and they're an important part of our strategy that a lot of us are working toward to try to make sure that everybody in this country has an opportunity to move forward and succeed. so it's discouraging to hear our colleagues reject the request for more information on jobs,

local taxpayers and now in this particular area. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman for his astute comments and build on the comments made by the ranking member. let me put into the record that the congressional research service in f.y. 2010, the federal government awarded contracts at $2. billion with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the hub zone program. that's an investment in small businesses, a creation of jobs. the gist of my amendment is jobs. what will be the impact of this type of budget structuring on the hub zones? why wouldn't we want that information? let me comment from the former budget committee chairman a republican witness testified that it may not be the budget process is broken, as suggested by this bill, it may not be that the tools are broken but that the tools are not being used. so if you're going to add more responsibility to the c.b.o., give them adegreesal tools to assess how the job creating

small businesses are going to be impacted by this bill. dr. phillip joist, former congressional -- phillip joyce, former congressional budget office staff member said most of the tools you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in the toolbox. therefore i'm saying we're putting another tool in the toolbox if it passes, give them the ability to make sure we're not killing small businesses that are impacted by the hub zone funding and assistance. we already see that small businesses create jobs. i would make the argument to my colleagues and i thank dr. price for his earlier kind words about the gist of this legislation. i would ask his reconsideration this is a good amendment i ask my colleagues to support it, i ask my colleagues to vote yes on the jaxx lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas, those in favor aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. merchandise jackson lee: mr.

chairman. with that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 -- clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those proceedings in part b of house report 113-400 in the following order, amendment number one, mr. connolly of virginia, amendment number two by mr. israel of new york, amendment number three by mr. cicilline of rhode island and amendment number five by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number one printed in part b of house report 113-400

by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 113-400 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen 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: is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote object amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 11-400 by the gentleman from new york, mr. israel, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 113-400, offered by mr. israel of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189. the noes are 211. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-400 by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceedings were

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 113-400, offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 186. the nays are 219. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-400 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will he redesignate the amendment. the clerk: house report number

113-400, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the eas are 181 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 185 and the nays are 222. the amendment is not adopted.

there being no further amendments, 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. 1874 and pursuant to house resolution 539, i report the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the house with a further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1874 and pursuant to house resolution 539 reports the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the house with a further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk reads the title. the clerk: a bill to amend the congressional budget act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the lady will pause. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? the clerk: as reported to the committee on the budget with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following -- amendment

-- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia ask -- mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to suspend with the reading of the m.t.r. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the house will come to order. . e gentlewoman will suspend please recove move conversations -- remove conversations from the house floor so we can proceed. the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. mr. speaker, some of us will

support this bill, and some of us will oppose it. but republican and democrat alike, we can all agree on the need for both parties to work together, to invest in our future and to help create jobs and opportunity for all americans. yes, we must reduce the deficit and tackle our national debt and, yes, we need to cut wasteful spending whenever we can. but to get the federal budget in order, we need to make smart investments to help grow our economy, to help american workers and businesses compete and win, we need to double down on education, job training, research and infrastructure, the very foundation of our economy. and, yes, the legislation we are debating today disregards the importance of these investments. this bill will require the

congressional budget office to study the long-term benefits of some proposals but not others. under this bill the c.b.o. would have to tell us how another tax break would help billionaires, but not how early investments in education will help middle-class families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. please cease conversations. take them off the floor of the house. clear the aisles so the gentlelady can proceed. the house will not proceed you stop conversation. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. under this bill the c.b.o. would have to tell us how another tax break would help billionaires but not how early investments in education would help middle-class families and

long-term economic growth. this just doesn't make any sense to my constituents in new hampshire. under this bill the c.b.o. would not analyze the impact of investments to revitalize our bridges and highways or to train our veterans for good jobs when they return home or to prepare students for careers in science and technology and engineering and mathematics or to fund cutting edge medical research or to expand our national network for manufacturing innovation which is already helping more workers and businesses make it in america. these investments make our economy stronger, and they are of long-term benefit to our economy. if we're going to pass this bill, we should recognize their value. and to that end my amendment would broaden the underlying bill and apply to it to major

investments in education, infrastructure, economic growth and job creation. smart investment to help hardworking americans all across our nation, these are the issues that the american people want us to focus on, so let's work together across the aisle, republicans and democrats, to improve this bill and to invest in a better future for our children. thank you, mr. speaker. i urge support for my amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is opposed to the motion. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have very good news for my friend from new hampshire. the underlying bill would include macroeconomic analysis on all of these items, education, infrastructure, transportation, employment, economic growth and so much more. therefore, we must oppose the

m.t.r. as it is redundant and urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. kuster: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered. 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 187. the nays are 218. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland -- >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded volt. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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.] 12k3w4r50eu6r7b8g9sdz10ushar

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 224. the nays are 182. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield to mr. cantor, the majority leader. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next

week, a complete list of which will be announced. in addition, mr. speaker, the house will consider three bills from the budget committee. the first bill, h.r. 1871, the baseline reform act, authored by representative rob woodall, would require c.b.o. and o.m.b. when scoring legislation to assume that the baseline does not increase or decrease for discretionary spending, which they do now. this practice added $1.2 trillion to the baseline in 2013. the second bill, h.r. 1872, the budget and accounting transparency act, written by representatives scott garrett -- representative scott garrett, brings offbudget onbudget to bring a more accurate of this had accounting. finally, the house will pass a budget resolution on time for a fourth consecutive year. the republican budget, under the leadership of chairman paul ryan and the budget committee members, will adhere to the agreed-upon spending limits and balance in 10 years, as we did last year, increase economic

growth and job creation, create opportunity, lessen the middle-class squeeze, cut wasteful government spending and strengthen our entitlement programs. and with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. it's wonderful news that that budget is going to do all of those things, i want you to know. and we're pleased that a budget is coming forward. we may not be pleased with the budget but breezed that it's coming forward. we had budget levels for fiscal year 2015. they'll adhere to the ryan-murray agreement. i assume that also means that it will adhere to the firewall division between defense and nondefense discretionary spending as well, is that accurate, mr. leader? mr. cantor: i'd say for that fiscal year he's correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i tell my friend, the majority leader, "the wall street

journal" had an editorial about , 14 paragraphs. i disagreed with the first 13 paragraphs but i did agree with the last paragraph. it said, but the ryan outline does the service of showing the policy direction in which republicans would have if they regained control of the senate next year. and then it goes on to say, senate democrats don't want to declare themselves without any votes but they favor higher taxes, much more spending, for anything other than defense. voters will have to decide on the direction they want congress to go. so, mr. leader, as i said, we welcome debate on this budget. we do believe it expresses the priorities of your party and as you know we differ with those priorities in many instances so i think the american people will get a spirited, informative and educational debate on the ryan budget. and i think that will do much

to inform them of the priorities of both parties. as i say, we look forward to that budget. unemployment insurance, mr. leader, is being considered on the senate floor. i'm not sure whether cloture vote -- i don't -- i know the cloture vote has been taken. i don't know if the final vote is taken. do you know if the senate passes that bill either today -- well, today, whether or not that bill might be on the floor next week, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, i'd ask the gentleman just to refer to a letter by the national association of state work force agencies dated march 19 to the majority and minority leader in the other body. and this letter essentially lays out a case for why their bill is unworkable.

again, these are the folks that are in the business of administering these programs. i'd also say to the the gentleman, i think the gentleman knows our position on that bill. it doesn't create any jobs. and right now we are in the business of trying to see how we can get people back to work for an america that works for more people, and i'd say to the gentleman, i look forward to joining him in focusing in on that. with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i'm informed by the ranking member of the ways and means committee that the -- we also have a letter from the secretary of labor, or one of the people that works with him, indicating that in fact they believe this would be workable but very frankly notwithstanding the letters, let me ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, if in fact we made a perspective which, of course, would clearly be workable and made it five months perspectively rather than three or 3 1/2 months retrospectively

d a month and a half prospectively through may 30, would that be an acceptable alternative, mr. majority leader? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say back to the gentleman, it is my opinion that what the gentleman asks for is a continuance of the status quo. we want to get people back to work. we are in the business of job creation. we want to provide a better environment for businesses to hire folks. we want to help those folks who are chronically unemployed access the skills necessary to fill the job openings today. as the gentleman knows, i'm sure his district is not unlike mine and other districts, there are a lot of job openings left unopen because the work force doesn't have access to proper training and skills. i look forward to joining with the gentleman in looking towards the future to how we can help those who are out of work get a job. and with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for his response, mr. speaker. but it seems to me it begs the question. my question was, yes, we want to get people back to work. everybody on this floor wants to get people back to work. i don't think there's any doubt about that. hopefully we would be at full employment. however, one defines that, whether it's 3%, 4% unemployment, which would be transition employment or unemployment, but, yes, we want everybody back to work. the issue is that i ask, mr. speaker, is if we don't get everybody back to work and we haven't gotten everybody back to work, 192,000 new jobs this past month, that's good but it's not good enough. and that's why we have continuing 6.7% unemployment. my question, mr. speaker, to let's rity leader, was assume for argument that the letter to which he refers is accurate -- i don't accept that

premise, but accepting that premise for the minute, would the majority leader be ameanable rather than do as the senate does making to retrospective so the 3 1/2 months that would have gone from january 1 or december 29, i suppose, of last year to today and paying that back simply extending for five months while people continue to look for employment that have been unable to find it because there are three times as many people looking for jobs as there are jobs available and we're adding 72,000 -- excuse me -- 72,000 people on a weekly basis to the unemployed rolls, so if we made a prospective, that would save an awful lot of , ple the pain and suffering i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd

say to the gentleman, we're looking to try and fix the problem. and i would also refer the gentleman to the fact that the emergency unemployment insurance that the gentleman speaks of was in place for the ngest time, i'm told, in history that it was in place for an emergency. as the gentleman well knows that we have in place six months of unemployment insurance benefits for those who are out of work, and i know that those who are out of work beyond that who are deemed chronically unemployed want most is an opportunity to get back to work. that's where i believe we ought to focus our efforts and really help people get back in to a job so they can support themselves, their family and create a better future. so i hope the gentleman will join us in refocusing a way from accepting the status quo as the new norm and instead trying to enhance the prospects

for the pursuit of happiness for the american people. and we are about an america that works for everybody, including those that are chronically unemployed. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. as he knows we have an agenda that does just that, it is called make it in america, expand manufacturing, give people the kind of jobs that have good benefits, have good security in the long term. there's no disagreement on that, mr. speaker. the only -- the only disagreement seems to be while we are trying to get that done whether or not we try to assure that those who've fallen through the cracks do not find themselves in dire circumstances because we have eliminated the safety net that we constructed. and i would say to the gentleman, this is the longest time in history -- and we are going to hear a lot of information from members of the ways and means committee -- longest time in history that we've had this level of long-term unemployment.

one of the reasons for that is obviously the dislocations in the marketplace and that we experienced the deepest recession that anybody, maybe ralph hall is an exception, that anybody in this auto body has experienced. -- in this body has experienced. in other words, we had the deepest recession that we had in the last administration that carried over into this administration was the deep depression, and you have to be 90 years or older to have really remembered and experienced that. . there's a lot of pape out there and all i'm saying we agreeing, there is no disagreement. we want to get people back to work. as i told you and he we haven't done it as vigorously and that's as much my fault as anybody. i want to do that. you're focused on your skills act. clearly we want to make sure people have the skills to get employment. but i would hope that we could

look at, assuming the senate passes this bill, to give relief to some 2.8 million people who are in dire straits, increasing by 72,000 a week, get them some support while we are trying and hopefully together to create the kinds of jobs and skills necessary to get them out of the hole that they are in. f i might note there are 193 democrats who have signed a discharge petition to bring the unemployment insurance to the floor. , i might do one other issue last week we had the sustainable growth rate. we extended it. we worked together to get that done. without going into it at length, i know the gentleman and i have had discussions about the sustainable growth rate, the so-called doc fix. we put a temporary patch on it.

that was in my opinion the wrong thing to do. it was the right thing to do temporarily, but it was the wrong thing to do. the gentleman knows that fixing the sustainable growth rate is now from a scoreable standpoint less expensive to do than it's been in over five years. i would hope that, mr. leader, working together we could address this issue at some time before this congress adjourns sine die. we need to fix this and fix it permanently. yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, we, too, would like to see the s.g.r. overhaul replaced with something that works. our physicians caucus on the majority side of the aisle has put a lot of work into this issue together with the ways and means committee and energy and commerce committee, have come up with a plan. as the gentleman knows that has bipartisan support. the problem is how to pay for it. as i think the gentleman would agree, we can't go and continue

to incur costs without finding out ways to pay for it. that seems to continue to vex many of the problems around here is trying to discover bipartisan pay fors. and we made a commitment to continue to work with those members who are most engaged in this issue, and look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to try and find those pay fors so we can put in place a long-term plan to give some certainty to our providers under medicare. yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i look forward to working with him. i would observe as he well knows and i have discussed with the speaker, the pay fors cled -- included in the temporary patch were as illusory as any other we could find. we simply accelerated dollars. we didn't pay for it. we simply put the debt off a month or he so and collected the money early and pretended that that was going to pay for it.

whether that's any more real than doing any of the other options that have been suggested i think is questionable, but i look forward to working with the gentleman. because i mentioned it every time but i want to mention it in slightly different context, will i bring up commep immigration reform again -- comprehensive immigration reform again. majority leader agrees broken system, we all agree, we ought to move forward. but we are going to be considering the budget. the budget we don't think is paid for. we'll have a discussion about that as we go down. we think it increases the deficits. not balanced in 10 years, but that aside the comprehensive immigration reform c.b.o. released its score on our bill, h.r. 15, which we think is a bipartisan bill. found that it would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades. including $200 billion over the first 10 years.

therefore comprehensive immigration reform in our opinion is not only the right thing to do, it is economically the smart thing to do. that is in the context of a bill that was brought to the floor this week that increases the deficit by nearly $74 billion dealing with the a.c.a. it's a bit ironic during a time of enormous deficit that is we have been ulling willing to -- unwilling to bring to the floor a bill that is scored by the c.b.o. as close to $1 trillion positive reduction of our deficit in the coming 20 years. so i would hope that we could look at that, as i say it's not only the right thing to do, but it's supported across the board. the bill that the senate passed by a 68-32 margin. supported by the chamber of commerce. supported by the afl-cio.

supported by growers, farmers, ag interests, as well as farm workers. supported by the faith community across the board, and supported by 70-plus percent of the american people. you would think in the context of that broad base of support that we could bring a bill which has such positive effects for human beings for individuals for our country as well as a positive economic effect. i would hope very sincerely that once we get past the budget and come back after the easter break that we address comprehensive immigration reform. i yield to my friend if he he has any comments. i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, as he he knows, both speaker, i, and others have said we reject a comprehensive approach taken by the senate, and also as the gentleman correctly states, we are in favor of trying to fix a very

broken, antiquated legal immigration system, as well trying to do something to stop illegal immigration. we just had an issue about the president's insistence on first of all saying it's his way or the highway. and secondly, the gentleman and i have talked before about the growing frustration that many americans have as well as members on our side of the aisle about the seeming disregard for the law by this administration in selectively implementing laws that have passed. spectly as it relates to -- specifically as it relates to the affordable care act. how would one know provision that is would be upheld, implemented, executed in whole or not given the situation surrounding the a.c.a.? those are the kinds of challenges we face. and would also note to the gentleman that the kind of thing that he refers to, comprehensive immigration, we reject that notion that the senate bill, and we reject comprehensive efforts

that have been undertaken over the last several years because they haven't worked so well. instead we should be looking to try to do the things that we agree on. what about border security? border security itself. if we can agree to say that's going to be our position, we are not negotiating on comprehensive bill that we've got to take care of that. what about the kids? the gentleman knows i'm very focused on trying to do something that we can agree on, but without saying that that has to be a precursor to something that the president insists or otherwise we can't even have the discussion. so again we've got a lot of issues regards to immigration. and i would say to the gentleman i understand his frustration. i think that we have plenty of people who are also frustrated given how things have gone with this white house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i want to say onboarder security, h.r. 15, which we

refer to as comprehensive bill, as you know included the border security provision passed out of the homeland security committee, chaired by your republican chairman, passed out on a voice vote, essentially unanimously, is included in our bill. on the border security issue we apparently have a very broad based agreement on that issue. the gentleman says you want to do it individually. the gentleman knows that the judiciary committee has passed out individual, discreet bills dealing with discreet parts of the immigration issue, which you say is a broken system, bring out discreetly those bills. the bill that the homeland security reported out unanimously has not been brought to the floor. the four bills that have been reported out of the judiciary committee have not been brought out to the floor. they were passed months and months and months ago so that if

you don't want to to a comprehensive -- that's the view of the majority leader, mr. speaker, then i would suggest to the majority leader that he bring out discreet bills, individual bills, not comprehensive, and see if we can deal with those. i will tell you our disappointment also is that it was not overwhelm the senate bill that was rejected, but the speaker put out some principles with respect to comprehensive immigration -- immigration reform, i won't call it comprehensive, put out some principles, we received those positively. we thought that was a positive step. unfortunately, those, the speaker's proposals, were rejected, apparently, by a very large number of your party in and outside this institution, and as a result six days after he issued the principles, he said that they were not going to be pursued. yes, we were frustrated and disappointed with that because we thought the speaker had taken a positive step forward. i don't know whether the

majority leader was, mr. speaker, part of the tsh-of those principles, but in any event, we accepted them as good faith efforts to come to an agreement. we were prepared to pursue discussions on those principles. unfortunately, as i say, the speaker withdrew them. mr. speaker, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time unless the majority leader wants me to yield to him. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. e.p.a. and army corps of engineers has proposed under waterways of the united states that the e.p.a. claim of jurisdiction not just over nearly every navigable waterway, but virtually every body of water in the nation no matter how large or small. mr. la malla: using a creative interpretation of a 40--year-old law it holds it has jurisdiction over any activities that could impact not just navigable waters but any waterway that eventually flows into a river, watterway, or wetland which is simply near, yes, near, a navigable waterway. furthermore, the e.p.a. doesn't stop at claiming control over water, it also claims control over any activity that could impact those waters in any way. this rule drastically limits private property rights by inserting the federal government

into local land use decisions. the rule would also expand epp's authorities from rivers, bays, nd wetlands into manmade waterways, and others unconnected to any waterway, and even puddles. that's right, puddles. the e.p.a.'s rule specifically exempted puddles telling me the final draft doesn't exempt them. enough is enough, it's time to put an end to the government overreach, defund these efforts in the appropriations process -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lamalfa: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with what's left of moy voice to support the 0th annual white ribbon campaign. for more than 25 years bear house has medicaid a crucial role in combating sexual

violence. located in the syracuse area in my district, vera house provides safe shelter, counseling service, and other surviss to help survivors rebuild their lives. it also provides lifesaving prevention throughout central new york. mr. maffei: it's clearly important we help their mission to end domestic abuse and sexual violence and empower the victims to promote equality and respect in relationships. the white ribbon campaign urges all members of the community to join those efforts and demonstrate such support by wearing a white ribbon. i urge my colleagues to support the campaign to raise awareness of sexual and domestic violence. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to commend the mayors of the city of

chicago for initiating of a new set of policies designed to help facilitate the re-entry of individuals with criminal records back into normal and productive life. these policies include apprenticeship and job opportunities with the chicago transit authority, city departments, and other municipal agencies, and on a lumented basis the ability to access public housing as a place to live. these are important initiatives for the re-entering community and for the citizens of chicago. i commend mayor rahm emanuel and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. the gentleman is recognized.

without objection. mr. levin: several of us have come together now to talk about unemployment insurance. the majority leader said to accept the senate bill is to accept the status quo, and that is simply not correct. it's not accepting the status quo, it's whether we will penalize over two million long-term unemployed looking for work who have lost their unemployment insurance because of the overall economic situation in this country that is getting better, but for them, not nearly good enough. so don't raise the issue of the status quo as a reason to

penalize over two million americans. mr. speaker, two months ago, a number of us invited unemployed workers to be our guest at the president's state of the union address. we wanted to give a voice to the over two million americans who have not -- who have had their unemployment benefits cut off. when these job seekers told their stories, one by one, i thought to myself, this is america. these young folks who come from every walk of life, who have worked hard, very hard, and who have played by the rules in pursuit of the american dream. now they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they are desperately, desperately seeking new employment. you can understand their

complete bewilderment when uninformed people call them lazy , and you can feel their utter disbelief that their government apparently has abandoned them. my guest for the state of the from st.ress was josie clair shores, michigan. josie proudly told us she'd worked since she was a teenager but now at age 60, she could not find a job. her unemployment benefits were helping her to keep her head above water as she searched for work. but when her benefits were cut off, she fell behind on her mortgage payment, struggled to keep the power on, and worried about becoming homeless, worried about that every day. josie and over two million

americans just like her are desperately waiting to see if this congress will finally act to help those seeking jobs. ratifying the status quo, not letting the status quo which is changing a bit but not enough, let that status quo penalize her. and indeed the good news is, the senate is expected to take that critical step on monday, by passing bipartisan legislation, burn legislation to retroactively extend the federal unemployment insurance program. so the question is this, whether this house will also act, or will it leave town and leave america's job seekers in the lurch? if every member of this chamber who simp -- would simply take a

few minutes to talk with unemployed workers in their district, people like josie, i have no doubt we will do the right thing and act. up to this point, action has been scant. the excuses have been plentiful. you heard that an extension of unemployment benefits must be paid for even though these emergency benefits have traditionally not been offset. but the senate unpliment extension is fully paid for with bipartisan offsets. so end the excuse. we have heard that any legislation extending unemployment benefits must also create jobs. but the c.b.o. has estimated that continuing emergency unemployment benefits would create 200,000 jobs by raising consumer demand.

so again, end the excuse. we have heard that extended unemployment benefits aren't needed anymore because the economy has recovered. the economy certainly has improved from the depths of the great recession, but we continue to have near record rates of long-term unemployment, indeed, the percentage of the long-term unemployed of those who are unemployed in this country is the largest in our records. we've never cut off these benefits in the past. with anything close to this level of long-term unemployment. so end that excuse. -- so ends that excuse. again we've heard that it's too late to help the unemployed because the federal u.i. program has been expired for too long. but it is -- but as the whip said, the secretary of labor has sent a letter saying that it can

be implemented. governors in state u.i. -- and state u.i. directors have said they stand ready, willing, and able to restore these critical benefits as has been done after prior lapses in benefits. so, let there be an end of that excuse. so let's get past any excuses and focus on the facts. anyone receiving an unemployment benefit must look for work and they have ample reason to do so given that the average unemployment benefit is only $300 a week. even at that modest level, and i want to emphasize this, unemployment benefits have lifted 11 million americans out of poverty since 2008, according to the census bureau. the end of the federal emergency unemployment program in december has left only one out of every four job seekers receiving

unemployment benefits, the lowest coverage in over 50 years. the bipartisan senate bill that will be voted on, we now expect monday, will restore this vital lifeline to nearly 2.8 million americans, including josie, and 106,000 other job seekers in my home state of michigan. someone recently asked me if this issue is personal to me. it is. when you hear the unemployed tell their stories, when you see thing an quish, the anguish in their faces, and when you know how hard they are struggling to find work, it's impossible to not take it personally. america, these are -- these are our friends, our neighbors, our

fellow americans. how coon we give them the cold shoulder? close to 2.8 million americans, these are the people whose livelihoods, whose lifelines are at stake here. i think, i hope, i fervently hope, that this institution will rise up to its greatest traditions, to respond to the needs of americans out of work through no fault of their own. looking hard for work. unable to find it. often people who are in their 40's, 50's and older find it difficult to find someone who will give them a fair shot. these are people like us, everywhere. we need to act.

i would now like to yield as much time as she may consume to a colleague and friend of mine, a member of our committee, who has worked so hard on these issues, ms. sanchez from the state of california. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. levin. thank you for your leadership on the committee. i rise to join mr. levin today in lending a vose to the 2.8 million american workers who are waiting for congress to act and renew unemployment insurance benefits. these people have been waiting 17 weeks for congress to reinstate the benefits that help them stay afloat as they search for a job. now imagine having to decide between putting food on the table and having a roof over your head. but these are the decisions that millions of workers, including more than 514,000 in california alone, continue to face. it's a hardship they have to

face because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to extend unemployment insurance benefits. over the last several weeks mitigating circumstance office has heard from dozens of constituents who are struggling because of congressional inaction. in fact, i've had the opportunity to talk with some of them and hear their stories personally. they come from all walks of life. from working class backgrounds to even educated professionals who hold masters and doctorate degrees. they all share one thing in common. they want to work. if i may, i'd like to share one of those stories with you. one of my constituents wrote to me, linda, in the past i've benefited from unemployment insurance when i was between jobs. part of my responsibility every time i went to pick up a check was to certify that i was actively searching for a job. this motivated me to continue searching for a job because i knew that the small income from

unemployment benefits allowed me to pay for my needs. such as copies of my resume, gasoline to travel to prospective work sites and interviews, and the phone calls i made to potential employers who were looking for employees. nowadays it seems that the unemployed are being pun herbed for being jobless through no fault of their own. that's just one of the many letters our office has received, but all of them share the same message. they want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know that they are not lazy or unmotivated, they want to work. as they continue to navigate the tough labor market, they need unemployment benefit to provide for their families and pay for the gas and phone bills that help them look for work and connect with potential employers. mr. speaker, unemployment insurance is not a handout. workers earned those benefits.

they paid into the unemployment insurance program so that they would have a safety net when times got tough. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to agree. so perhaps an economic argument might sway them. the congressional budget office estimates that an extension of unemployment insurance benefits would grow our g.d.p. by .2% and add 200,000 jobs to our economy in this year alone. that's because recipients are more likely to take the money they rev -- receive and spend it on essential goods and services and as a result employers would hire more people to meet consumer demand for those proukts and -- products and services. it's fiscal economics. my colleagues say they want to joe groh the economy and create jobs but when the opportunity comes to do that, they refuse to act. it's been 17 weeks since

millions lost their unemployment insurance benefits so what are they waiting for? each week that dewe delay, 72,000 new unemployed americans lose their benefits. that's one more household, one more family, that will have to decide whether to keep a roof over their head or food on their table. mr. speaker, a lot of these americans are part of the group of long-term unemployed. these are people who, despite their -- despite their best attempts have not been able to find work in over six months. the reality that these americans face is abysmal. research by princeton university shows that in any given month, the long-term unemployed have only a one in 10 chabs of finding work. a big reason for this is because employers are more likely to discriminate against long-term unemployed even if they have the same skills and experience as other applicants. mr. speaker, these people are waiting for congress to act. i'll share one more note from

ron in pasadena, california, who says, i just hope that our representatives are able to see beyond political po lairities and look into the faces of those families to whom this issue does not merely exist as a statistic or theory but more genuinely as a question of survival. next week, the senate is set to vote and pass an extension of unemployment benefits. the measure would reinstate federal unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and allow for retroactive payments to go out to more than two million americans who lost their benefits in late december. i hope that my colleagues here in the house summon the courage to act and follow the senate's lead. it's time to stop disrespecting people who are working hard to try to find work. mr. speaker, don't leave millions of americans behind. give unemployment insurance the vote that it deserves. with that, i'll yield back to my

colleague, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you for your moving rea -- your moving remarks. i hope that the country is listening. now another person who has devoted as much time as ms. sanchez has to this effort to bring to the attention of this country what this is really all about, the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford. . mr. horsford: thank you. first i'd like to extend my appreciation to my colleague, my good friend, the ranking member, mr. levin, from the great state of michigan, for hosting this critically important special order hour on extending unemployment insurance benefits. for over 2.2 million people who have been cut off since the end of last year. thank you for your leadership and tenacity in making sure that this issue remains a priority here in this house. i commend you, sir, for your

leadership. and the timing of this special order hour in this session is not coincidental. the senate is well on their way towards passing a bipartisan bill to restore this critical financial lifeline that the people in this country depend on while they search for work. i want to commend my majority leader, senator harry reid from the great state of nevada, and the other great u.s. senator from nevada, dean heller, a republican, who have worked in a bipartisan manner with senator jack reed to get to the point they are in the senate. i want to go further in recognizing senator dean heller n calling speaker boehner just recently to ask him what it would take to bring up a clean vote on extending unemployment insurance benefits.

because this is not a partisan issue. at least it shouldn't be. helping two million americans who rely on unemployment insurance as a bridge while they search for work is basic fundamental and should be supported by members on both sides of the aisle. extending the emergency unemployment compensation program through the -- through may and restoring the financial bridge to nearly 2.8 million americans. these are our neighbors. they are people that we know. now, the democratic caucus in the house comes to the floor today with a unified voice to respectfully ask the speaker of this house for a vote. we have heard the calls from our constituents and they cannot

wait another day for the republican leadership to continue to play political games. my colleague, representative sanchez, just said it's been 17 weeks since she's unemployment insurance benefits have expired. for each week that's $300 on average that family members who use this to pay the rent, to keep the utilities on, to put some gas in the car so that they can search for work, have been lost. so we come here today to talk about the lives that have been affected by this congress' inaction at a time when the american people expect us to act. we are here to put the face to the numbers because there are real people behind the 2.8 million americans who are suffering. to give voice to those who are being ignored while they

struggle to stay in their homes and to put food on their table for this manieselves and their families. -- for themselves and their families. i'm from nevada and our state we recently had our numbers released today and fortunately the numbers are getting better. now we are the third worst in unemployment. that's good news, but it's still not good enough. nevada, along with other states like rhode island continue to face higher unemployment in the nation. not because the people in our state doesn't want to work, but because the environment in our states haven't he recovered fast enough from the recession. now, in nevada we like boasting more about being the entertainment capital of the world. and the fact that we have some of the most magnificent natural resources anywhere. unfortunately the prolonged recession has hit our state and

the people of nevada to our core. and as i said, it's because in large part our economy was a growth economy. for nearly 20 years, year over year, we had double-digit growth. and people were moving to the great state of nevada to help us build and to grow. but during the recession that changed. so now over 100,000 nevadans are unemployed. and have been primarily from the construction, engineering, and architecture sectors of our economy. these aren't people who don't ant to work. there's an environment that's not allowing them to go to work. if we pass the senate bill, 31,500 nevadans would see their unemployment benefits extended.

and it's not a lot of money, as i said. it's not enough to live off of, but for these families and the stories that they have told us, it can make all the difference between being on the brink and literally falling off. i want to share a couple of stories of constituents who i met over the last few weeks as we have tried to bring attention to this issue. i use -- before coming to congress i ran an employment and training agency that helped thousands of people get training to go to work. in las vegas. and i know what it takes to put people back to work. so i went and visited one of our work force centers and met with a group of unemployed workers to hear directly what they are facing and what it has meant to lose their unemployment insurance. they told us that they didn't

theywhere else to turn and surely, if speaker boehner could hear from them, they want to to know they want him they want to do right by our fellow citizens and return to work. monching the nevadan who is have been cut off from unemployment insurance is monty. he was laid off from his job on doose -- december 4, 2013, and he lost his benefits on december 28, 2013. when he called my office in february, his life had gone from bad to worse. monty told my staff i have had to basically pawn everything of value that i own to try to stay in my apartment. that came to an end recently when i couldn't afford to stay there anymore and i was evicted. right now i'm sleeping on rocks

outside of a brick wall at night with a blanket to keep me warm. during the daytime i go out and look for work. prior to losing unemployment benefits, i was able to pay my rent on a weekly basis, have bus fair to get around and look for jobs, and provide a little bit of food for myself and keep looking. monty hearnt given up -- and given up because he's determined to get back on his feet. he's never been in the situation before, and, mr. speaker, he is not a lazy person. when he was employed, he hadn't miss add day of work in 25 years. now he can't understand why congress has turned its back on him. unemployment benefits were providing him the opportunity to keep looking for work and to stay in his home so that he could have a bed to sleep in an a hot shower before he goes on

work interviews. there was recently good news for monty, he recently signed up for medicaid because of the affordable care act. it's a small victory for him. but his story of losing his home is the same as thousands of people around this nation. that's why i'm proud to be a lead sponsor of the stop foreclosures due to the congressional dysfunction act introduced by congressman matt cartwright from pennsylvania, the legislation would impose a six-month moratorium on foreclosures for individuals who have lost their unemployment insurance compensation due to the recent congressional inaction. until we do the right thing, mr. speaker, by extending unemployment insurance, we must do everything that we can to keep families with a roof over their head. congressman cartwright and i

have also sent a letter to federal housing finance agency director mel watt requesting that he take action and use his regulatory authority to establish the six-month moratorium if congress fails to act to pass this important legislation. another constituent who i talked with recently is elizabeth. like my colleague, representative sanchez said, many of these workers, or unemployed people who want to work, happen to be older americans who feel that age has something to do with why they are not able to get back into the work force. she lost her job with the nevada division of insurance last year after suffering a stroke and two severe concussions. she has been searching every single day for work. she like monty was uninsured until receiving coverage under

the affordable care act. , and her unemployment benefit helped pay her premium and the expensive medication that is help prevent her he seizures. after losing her benefits, she had to cut down on taking her medication. now taking it every other day instead of daily. and now risk suffering another accident. giving her -- give her new condition -- given her new condition, she made it her goal to become a caretaker and companion for senior citizens, which required she attend classes and training. the unemployment benefits that she was receiving helped pay to put gas in her car to attend those classes. when she lost her benefits, she had to stop taking the classes. which was devastating because this was part of her goal and the transition that she was trying to make to return to

work. but like many people, she had tough choices to make. she told us it wasn't a lot of money when she had a job, but now her family barely has enough to stay in their home and to pay their bills. elizabeth wants to work. she told us you think it's fun sitting around every day feeling like you're worthless? like you're nothing? she told us that most of all she wants to be able to get back to work, to help provide for her neighbors for those senior citizens that need that caring attention, for those who are worse off than she is. one of the hardest parts of being in financial straits for her is not being able to give to charity. that's true citizenship, mr. speaker. house republicans could learn a lot from elizabeth. these are the personal stories of those who have been hurt by

congress' failure to act. if republicans don't want to extend unemployment insurance because it's the right thing to do for our fellow americans, then maybe, then maybe you'll do it because it's the right thing to do for the economy. overall pailing to he renew the -- overall failing to renew the emergency unemployment compensation program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs. this year according to the congressional budget office, including 3,000 jobs in my home state of nevada, failing to extend unemployment insurance has drained already nearly $5 billion from our state economy. including $70 million from nevada's economy. at a time when economic growth is needed the most. and for every $1 that's spent on unemployment insurance, it grows the economy by $1.52.

so which ever way you look at it, there is no excuse for inaction. so when the senate acts next week, the country's attention will turn to the house. and i'm here with my colleagues day to urge the speaker to listen to the americans in this country who are desperately depending on us to act. at the end of next week, we will go into a work period for two weeks. during those two weeks, americans will suffer if we don't act. so, mr. speaker, we must be ready to act and i urge my colleagues to do the right thing by extending unemployment insurance for the millions of americans who need it now. again i'd like to thank the gentleman from michigan and the other colleagues who have joined for this special order.

i yield back my time. mr. levin: thank you so much for your mr. levin: thank you for your eloquence. i hope this country is listening as well as your beloved state. now i yield such time as he may consume to another friend of mine and most importantly, someone whose life embodied caring for others, the gentleman rom illinois, mr. davis. mr. davis: i want to thank the ranking member of the ways and means committee, i'm pleased to join with him and others of my colleagues as we come to the floor to call for the immediate passage of legislation in the house to concur with the senate in the restoration of unemployment benefits to the more than two million american who was been cut off of extended

unemployment insurance. because our republican colleagues continue to block extensions of the program. it is inconceivable to me that as a government, as a nation, we would leave all of these individuals hanging. many of them since december 28 of last year. in 2013. nationally, nearly 72,000 people are losing unemployment insurance on average every week. adding to the 202 million people who have already lost their benefits. the department of labor estimated that the bipartisan senate agreement to extend emergency unemployment insurance

would benefit nearly 2.8 million people. hat's a big part of america. long-term unemployment wrecks people's lives, makes it almost impossible for them to ever catch up. because they've gotten behind. they've lost what they had. they've been evicted from their homes. their children have had to come out of college. they just have not known which way to turn, except to turn to their government, whom they believe have their interests at heart and will do the right thing by and for them. illinois, my state, the home of lincoln, is estimated to have

296,763,435 dollars just under $300 million. in unemployment benefits during the first three months of the year. any way you count it, that's a lot of money. and it takes that money away from and out of the economy. those of us who understand a certain kind of economics know that if you're not able to exchange goods and services, people are not table go to the store and get a bottle of milk, or to stop at the service station and buy gasoline, there's no point to talking about economic recovery. so not only is it in the best

interests of those individuals who are in need of unemployment benefits, but it's also in the as interests of our nation a whole. and so, mr. levin, i want to commend you for the leadership that you have provided on this issue. i want to thank you for the tremendous leadership and your understanding of the issues facing america. and so i hope that next week, when we return, that our colleagues will realize that we, too, can make a difference. we can join with the senate and pass unemployment insurance benefits for more than 2.8 million americans. i thank you and yield back the alance of my time.

mr. levin: thank you for your eloquent remarks. how much time is left in our hour? the speaker pro tempore: 25 minutes. mr. levin: well, i guess i'll close and then yield to the gentleman from minnesota, before i do that, i just want to conclude this way. this is a bipartisan bill that's coming over from the senate. this country has asked for bipartisanship. that bill embodies it. is country has asked for fiscal care. traditionally unemployment insurance has not been paid for. this bill is paid for. on a bipartisan basis. so what more is america asking

for? it's asking for people in this institution to step into the shoes of several million people, hardworking, lost their job through no fault of their own, looking for work. many of them never having been unemployed before. if there's a vote allowed in this institution, this bill will pass. so there's only one obstacle to r doing what is right, and that is whether there'll be a decision on the part of the leadership of this house to let be te, and it won't ourselves voting, it will be

america voting. america wants a vote to help the several million and their families. so i leave here going out of washington, hoping that when all of us return here, that we have looked into the eyes of fellow and sister americans out of work, that we will have reached out and listened to their stories, and they'll come back with a sense of urgency, with a sense of decency, and with a conscience. this issue should be on the conscience of every member of this house. of every member of this house.

i now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from minnesota who in turn will yield back the balance of our time if any is left. thank you, mr. speaker, very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for the remainder of the hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. levin, for this special order and bringing to the attention of our colleagues and the country the importance of providing unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are struggling and in danger of losing their homes and the ability to feed their families and as a businessman, over the last 32 years, i'd like to point out to these people who somehow like to characterize these people as scoff laws who don't want to work and remind them you don't qualify for unemployment

insurance unless you're a worker. mr. nolan: and you have found yourself unemployeed by virtue of circumstances you had no control over. so you are so right that this is the right thing to do. it is bipartisan. there is a pay-for here. we should have the good judgment and the decency to extend unemployment insurance for these people. so i thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i'd like to address another issue and it's the fact that most of us here in the congress grew up in a time when our leaders weren't afraid to invest in our country. to invest in human development. and because of them education was affordable. guess what? that's no longer true. now we're faced with the ryan budget that cuts pell grants for poor and needie kids who would ike to get a post-graduate

education. medicare. nothing has ever done more to extend the lives of more people than medicare. in a little over a generation, we went from a nation with a life expectancy of about 47 to over 77. in a little over a generation. what does the ryan budget do with medicare? it eliminates it as we know it. turns the elderly back over to the insurance industry. mr. speaker, our leaders in the past invested in transportation and health, in education, they created the strongest economy and the strongest and largest middle class in the history of the world. and now our bridges are falling down. what does the ryan budget do? it cuts funding for transportation. mr. speaker, let's be honest. the simple truth is, the ryan

budget cuts funding for all the investment that created and were responsible for the incredible national and individual success that our generation has enjoyed. cuts everything from head start to health to essential air service, funding for basic research, for health and technology, so many of the things that made us a great nation. and now, we don't have, after being the beneficiaries of what our generation before us did, we don't want to invest in the future of our children and their children? mr. speaker, it's time for a budget that acknowledges the real foundations of our prosperity, of our opportunities, and for our freedom here in this country. let's put forth a budget that shows our gratitude for the next

generation. let's pay it forward. many e mindful of how important things that leaders in the past did for us, laying this foundation. where i come from, there's a wonderful old bib lick call saying that says, for those to whom much is given, much is expected. not less, but more. let's do for the next generation what the past generation did for us. thank you, mr. speaker. yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i just wanted to chime in agreement with the last thing that my colleague across the aisle just said, he said, let's do for the next generation what the last generation did for us. mr. speaker, i think that's incredibly important. what a great thing my democratic friend said. because every generation before ours has tried to live within their means. this generation that's in power

in this congress is the first generation that continues to spend not only children's money but grandchildren and great grandchildren's money. we have accumulated such debt that our children are not only not going to rise up and call us blessed, they're going to rise up and swear at our names because this is the generation that has felt that it was so incredibly important that we needed to put our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, in hock just so we would not have to just quit spending money so irresponsibly. i could not agree more with that last statement. let's do for the