Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2014

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, budgets are moral documents. These annual documents are really statements of who we are as political parties and as groups and as people. They represent our values. They tell a story about what we believe in and how we would govern.

I had thought that I had come here today to say that this budget before us, the Ryan budget, is simply bad or that it is misguided. Madam Speaker, it is much worse than that.

This is an awful budget. It takes our country in the fundamentally wrong direction.

It seems as though every year we shake our heads wondering how the latest Ryan budget could possibly get worse than the previous year's efforts. And yet, time after time, the Ryan budget manages to pull it off.

This budget is cruel, but sadly, it is not unusual.

The gentleman from Georgia says he can't contain his smiles when he talks about this budget. I don't think there is anything to smile about.

Year after year, the Ryan budget does more and more damage to the social fabric of our Nation. Year after year, it puts the wishes of the rich ahead of the needs of the poor. And year after year, it sacrifices the reality of desperately needed investments at the altar of theoretical deficit reduction.

Let's look at the details. The Ryan budget includes deep cuts. How deep? $791 billion below the sequester number. $791 billion below sequester. That is amazing, Madam Speaker.

Now, I voted against sequester because of the damage it would and it did inflict on our economy. This budget would actually cut nearly $1 trillion on top of the sequester. I thought we wanted to end sequester, not make choices that are even worse.

But that is not the end of the story. According to one estimate, 69 percent of the Ryan budget cuts come from low-income programs. It would shred the safety net. The programs that keep millions of Americans out of poverty and help provide millions of Americans with health care, that will provide millions of children with school meals and early childhood education, received the lion's share of the cuts. That is what the Ryan budget does.

In fact, according to the same estimate, $3.3 trillion of the Ryan budget's $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts come from low-income safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, school breakfast and lunch programs, Head Start, the Supplemental Security Income program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Child Tax Credits.

Sixty-nine percent of the total non-defense cuts come from these life-changing, indeed, lifesaving programs.

The Ryan budget is successful at one thing: it deepens the divide between the rich and poor in this country. It successfully makes life harder for those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

If you are hungry in America, you would see food benefits cut by $137 billion.

If you are a middle class college student in America, hopefully you can win the lottery, or have a rich uncle, because Pell grants would be cut by $125 billion by freezing the maximum grant and cutting eligibility.

If you are a low-income working mother in America who gets health care through Medicaid, you would join at least 40 million Americans who will become uninsured by 2024 after the Ryan budget cuts at least $2.7 trillion from Medicaid.

And if you are a middle class family with kids in America just trying to get by in this sluggish economy, you would see your taxes go up by $2,000.

But if you are fortunate enough to be very rich in America, you lucked out. It is time to pop the champagne because you make out like a bandit. The oil companies keep their tax breaks. Businesses can keep putting money in overseas accounts just to avoid paying taxes here in America.

And if you are a millionaire?

Get ready for a big fat check from Uncle Sam. That is because anyone making $1 million a year will see a tax cut of at least $200,000.

On top of these disastrous policies, the Ryan budget, once again, goes after seniors. This version, once again, ends the Medicare guarantee and reopens the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole.

As a result of these cuts, seniors will see their traditional Medicare premiums soar by an average of 50 percent. As AARP says:

Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable health

coverage for older Americans by implementing a premium

support system and asking seniors and future retirees to pay

more is not the right direction.

Now these policies have real world ramifications. Last week, Madam Speaker, an incredibly strong and courageous group of women called the Witnesses to Hunger returned to Capitol Hill to talk about their struggles as low-income, working women trying to make ends meet.

It takes guts to come here to Capitol Hill to tell your story and challenge Members of Congress to do better, and that is exactly what these impressive women did. They told their stories. They talked about their struggles, and they challenged us to do more to help so they don't fall back into poverty.

These women, and the millions of Americans like them who work hard every day, don't earn enough to make ends meet. They are having to choose between rent and food and electricity.

These women and their children aren't line items in our budget. They aren't statistics in our reports. They are people, people who just want to have a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and an education system that will help their children learn and succeed.

They want to go to college and not have to worry about losing their scholarships just because they are a single mother and need to work a night job to feed their child.

These women, and millions of Americans, would be hurt, they would be devastated by the Ryan budget. I am glad there are people who are able to make a lot of money in this country. I have nothing against rich people, but we shouldn't penalize those who are struggling.

Madam Speaker, we should be providing ladders of opportunity to help people get out of poverty and move into the middle class. When people need a helping hand, we should provide that assistance, whether it is a job training program, early childhood education, health care, or something as simple and as basic as food.

These aren't handouts; they are hand-ups. They are investments in our future, and we should be providing opportunities to strengthen our communities and the middle class through job creation, higher education, and advancing research and innovation.

This is a great country. We have done great things, but we have begun to think small. That is what the Republican majority has succeeded in doing. They have got us to start thinking small rather than big. We don't tackle big problems anymore. We use deficit reduction as an excuse to do nothing.

What we need to do is tackle big issues like ending hunger. We should tackle the issue of ending poverty. We should want to strive for a country that benefits not just the few who are rich but the many who are poor.

The Ryan budget would set us back. It would do real damage to millions and millions of real Americans, our neighbors, our friends, our fellow parishioners.

As Pope Francis has written in his Papal Exhortation:

I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere

and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots,

and not simply the appearances of the evils in our world.

Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation

and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks

the common good.

Inasmuch as it seeks the common good. This budget, this Ryan budget, this Republican budget, or whatever you want to call it, does not seek the common good. This budget fails that basic test that Pope Francis outlined. It does not seek the common good. It deserves to be defeated.

We can do so much better in this Congress and for our country. I am ashamed that this is what we are debating here today, that this is the Republican vision for our future.

This the wrong way to go. Democrats and Republicans should say ``no'' to this.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think one of the differences between what the Republicans have proposed and what Democrats are proposing is that what they propose is just one thing--cuts. Cuts and cuts and cuts in programs for the most needy in this country, and more tax cuts for the most wealthy.

What the Democrats have proposed is a more balanced approach. Yeah, there needs to be some sacrifice, but we also understand the importance of investment.

If you want to find a way to balance the budget, why don't we find a cure for Alzheimer's disease? Not only would that help improve the quality of life for millions of people, but it would also eliminate all the fiscal problems that Medicaid has.

Let's find a cure for diabetes. Let's find a cure for cancer.

Why aren't our energies devoted toward investing in medical research?

And yet the Ryan budget that we are now debating would devastate medical research in this country. It would devastate it.

We have researchers coming in to visit us who are telling us that China is offering them a better package to do their medical research, Singapore. I want these cures to be found here in the United States. I want to invest in that research that will not only save people's lives, but create jobs and also save money.

Yet, my friends on the other side, they devastate investments in medical research. They devastate investments in scientific research. They devastate investments in transportation.

Their way is one way: cut programs that help the most needy, and give tax breaks to the Donald Trumps of the world. Donald Trump doesn't need any more help. Middle class families, those struggling to get into the middle class, do need help.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4415, the House companion to the unemployment insurance extension bill passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate just yesterday. Representative Kildee introduced this bill just hours after Senate passage.

Today, on Equal Pay Day, my amendment will also bring up H.R. 377, Rosa DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. It is shameful that women in America still make an average of only 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male colleagues. The Paycheck Fairness Act will require equal pay for equal work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Caardenas).

Madam Speaker, I think what you just saw on the floor is frustration. In the supposedly open House that my colleagues brag about--erroneously, I should add--this issue of comprehensive immigration reform has failed to be given a day on the floor.

The United States Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that would, by the way, raise close to a trillion dollars over the next 20 years to pay down our debt, and yet we can't even get it scheduled on the House floor. The leadership here continues to block it, and Mr. Caardenas and Mr. Polis last night in the Rules Committee thought that, given the fact that there is such an incredible savings here, it was relevant to this.

And, by the way, the Rules Committee can do whatever it wants to. The Rules Committee could issue the necessary waivers to allow this to happen. There is no reason at all why this couldn't have been brought up today except that a majority in the Rules Committee said no. I mean, that is the reason why.

So what you see is frustration. What you see is frustration not just by Democrats. There are people on the Republican side who, as well, would like to see us debate comprehensive immigration reform, and instead we are blocked at every single avenue. So that has to change; otherwise, you are going to see more of the kinds of displays that you just witnessed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to agree with my friend from Oklahoma that Mr. Ryan has given us a choice. He has presented us a budget that would end Medicare as we know it; it would slash the social safety net to smithereens; it cuts SNAP by $137 billion; and it would damage the National Institutes of Health and transportation funding. Pell grants would be cut. I could go right down the list. Yeah, I know we have got a choice here, and people ought to understand what that budget is all about.

My friends on the other side may be proud of this. Again, I find that puzzling, because the notion that the only way to balance the budget is by hurting poor people or hurting the middle class, I don't agree with.

You talk about sacrifices. Why are all the sacrifices on the backs of middle-income families or on the backs of the poor in this country? The rich get a tax cut. The rich get a tax cut. Middle class families get a tax increase. Poor people get their food stamps taken away from them. Why is that always the choice that you provide Members of this House? Why are those the only people that sacrifice? I just find it unconscionable, quite frankly.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Florida that national defense includes more than the number of weapons we have in our arsenal. It also include the quality of life for our people here at home, and these programs that he is denigrating, like SNAP, for example, I should remind him there are an extremely high number of military families that rely on SNAP to get by and a high number of veterans who do as well.

Basic food, they are looking for helping with putting food on the table. So before anybody denigrates those programs, understand that they contribute to our national defense as well. They are feeding our military families and veterans because our returning veterans can't find jobs that pay a livable wage.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I insert in the Record a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entitled ``Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP by $137 Billion Over 10 Years, Low-Income Households in all States Would Feel Sharp Effects.''

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

The Ryan budget will create a government without a conscience. It is cruel. This budget is a rotten thing to do to poor people; it is a rotten thing to do to the middle class. It is an outrage.

So please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

This really is an embarrassment. We could do so much better in this Chamber. The people in this country deserve much better than what we are giving them.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Apr. 4, 2014]

Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP by $137 Billion Over Ten Years

Low-Income Households in All States Would Feel Sharp Effects

(By Dorothy Rosenbaum)

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan

includes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) of

$137 billion--18 percent--over the next ten years (2015-

2024), which would necessitate ending food assistance for

millions of low-income families, cutting benefits for

millions of such households, or some combination of the two.

Chairman Ryan proposed similarly deep SNAP cuts in each of

his last three budgets. The new Ryan budget specifies two

categories of SNAP cuts:

It includes every major benefit cut in a House-passed

version of the recent farm bill that Congress ultimately

rejected when enacting the final farm bill. The Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the House cuts, which

amount to $12 billion over the 2015-2018 period, would have

terminated benefits to 3.8 million low-income people in 2014.

After a difficult two-year process, Congress just two months

ago, on a bipartisan basis, passed a farm bill that rejected

these House cuts and reauthorized SNAP and other Agriculture

programs for five years.

It would convert SNAP into a block grant beginning in 2019

and cut funding steeply--by $125 billion (or almost 30

percent) over 2019 to 2024. States would be left to decide

whose benefits to reduce or terminate. They would have no

good choices--the program already provides an average of only

$1.40 per person per meal, primarily to poor children,

working-poor parents, seniors, people with disabilities, and

others struggling to make ends meet.

Ryan Block Grant Would Force States to Cut Food Assistance Deeply

Since 90 percent of SNAP spending goes for food assistance,

and most of the rest covers state administrative costs to

determine program eligibility and operate SNAP properly,

policymakers couldn't achieve cuts of this magnitude without

substantially scaling back eligibility or reducing benefits

deeply, with serious effects on low-income families and

individuals. Table 1 provides state-by-state estimates of the

potential impact of the block grant proposal.

Cuts in eligibility. If the cuts came solely from

eliminating eligibility for categories of currently eligible

households or individuals, states would have to cut an

average of 10 million people from the program (relative to

SNAP enrollment without the cuts) each year between 2019 and

2024.

Cuts in benefits. If the cuts came solely from across-the-

board benefit cuts, states would have to cut more than $40

per person per month in 2019 to 2024 (in nominal dollars), on

average. This would require setting the maximum benefit at

about 77 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan, the Agriculture

Department's (USDA) estimate of the cost of a bare-bones,

nutritionally adequate diet. (Under SNAP rules, the maximum

benefit--which goes to households with no disposable income

after deductions for certain necessities--is set at 100

percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan.)

The impact of such a change would be pronounced. All

families of four--including the poorest--would face benefit

cuts of about $160 a month in fiscal year 2019, or more than

$1,900 per year. All families of three would face cuts of

about $125 per month, or about $1,500 per year. Of course,

policymakers could shield some households from such deep

cuts, but then other households would need to bear even

larger cuts in order to produce the $125 billion in block-

grant savings.

While states might not seek to hit the Ryan targets through

eligibility cuts or benefit cuts alone, these examples

illustrate the magnitude of the reductions needed. States

would have few other places to achieve the required cuts; as

noted, about 90 percent of SNAP expenditures are for food

assistance.

Proposed Cuts Rest on Inaccurate Claims

Chairman Ryan bases his proposed SNAP cuts on a series of

inaccurate claims about SNAP program growth, work

disincentives, and waste, fraud, and abuse.

Spending growth. Chairman Ryan justifies deep SNAP cuts in

part by claiming that the ``explosive growth [of SNAP and

other low-income programs] is threatening the overall

strength of the safety net'' and ``SNAP spending is forecast

to be permanently higher than previous estimates even after

the recession is long past.'' While SNAP spending did grow

substantially during the recession, it has begun to decline

as a share of the economy and is expected to continue

shrinking over the coming decade.

SNAP grew because of three factors: the depth of the recent

recession, which made more people eligible; improvements in

reaching eligible households (particularly working-poor

families); and the 2009 Recovery Act's temporary benefit

boost (which ended in November 2013). As Figure 1 indicates,

CBO projects that SNAP will return to pre-recession levels as

a share of the economy

(gross domestic product) once the economy fully recovers. The

program does not contribute to the nation's long-term budget

problem because it is projected to grow no faster than the

economy over time.

Work and dependency. Chairman Ryan also justifies cutting

SNAP and turning it over to the states by implying that SNAP

doesn't encourage recipients to work. Yet the number of SNAP

recipients who work while receiving SNAP has more than

tripled over the past decade. Furthermore, CBPP analysis

finds that the large majority of SNAP recipients who can work

do so, and many more rely on SNAP when they are between jobs

or looking for work.

Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-

disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP and

more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year

after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families

with children: more than 60 percent work while receiving

SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent

year. Only 4 percent of households that worked in the year

before receiving SNAP did not work the following year.

Moreover, SNAP already has work requirements. Adults

without children face a harsh three-month time limit if they

are unemployed and not participating in a qualifying

employment and training program. States can apply for a

waiver from this requirement during a weak economy when jobs

are not available by submitting detailed Department of Labor

data showing high unemployment in local areas or statewide,

but the number of areas qualifying for a waiver is falling as

the economy recovers, and CBO expects the number of such

areas to shrink markedly over the next few years. (The Ryan

budget would eliminate these waivers immediately, even for

areas with double-digit unemployment.) In addition, states

have broad authority to operate employment and training

programs, and the recent farm bill includes a major

demonstration program for states to test innovative

approaches to providing employment and training services that

raise recipients' earnings and reduce their reliance on

public assistance.

Waste, fraud, and abuse. Finally, Chairman Ryan justifies

his SNAP proposals based on charges that SNAP is rife with

waste, fraud, and abuse. The reality is that SNAP has one of

the most rigorous quality control systems of any public

benefit program and a very low error rate. Despite the recent

growth in caseloads, the share of total SNAP payments that

represent overpayments or payments to ineligible households

fell to a record low of 2.77 percent in fiscal year 2012. In

addition, USDA has cut ``trafficking''--the sale of SNAP

benefits for cash, which violates federal law--by three-

quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1.3 percent of SNAP

benefits are trafficked. USDA has also permanently

disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for

not following strict federal requirements. When cases of SNAP

fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders

have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are

aggressively combating fraud.

Benefit Cuts Would Primarily Affect Low-Income Families With Children,

Seniors, and People With Disabilities

The Ryan budget documents assert that Congress could

achieve the required savings by capping federal SNAP funding

and ``allow[ing] states to customize SNAP to the needs of

their citizens'' through a block grant. That description

leaves the mistaken impression that the program is not

serving a population that is overwhelmingly poor and that

savings could be achieved without significantly harming

millions of vulnerable Americans.

Unlike most means-tested benefit programs, which are

restricted to particular categories of low-income

individuals, SNAP is broadly available to almost all

households with very low incomes. Cutting SNAP thus would

affect broad swaths of the low-income population. Currently,

46.8 million people receive SNAP to help them feed their

families. Census data show that in 2012 (the latest year for

which these data are available), 46.5 million Americans lived

below the poverty line, and 64.8 million lived below 130

percent of the poverty line, SNAP's gross income limit.

The overwhelming majority of SNAP households are families

with children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Seventy

percent of SNAP participants are in families with children;

more than one-quarter are in households that include senior

citizens or people with disabilities.

SNAP households have very low incomes. Eighty-three percent

of SNAP households have incomes below the poverty line while

they are receiving SNAP assistance (about $19,800 for a

family of three in 2014). Such households receive 91 percent

of SNAP benefits. Two of every five SNAP households have

incomes below half of the poverty line. Such individuals and

families have little flexibility in their monthly budgets to

cope with deep reductions in food assistance.

Low-wage workers rely on SNAP to boost their monthly

income. Millions of Americans live in working households with

earnings that are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In

2012, some 39 million people (1 in 8 Americans) lived in a

working family with cash income below 130 percent of the

poverty line. Low incomes like these--which typically reflect

low wages or limited work hours--can leave families unable to

afford necessities like food and housing on a regular basis.

SNAP benefits play a crucial role in boosting such families'

monthly resources: in 2012, a typical working mother with two

children on SNAP earned $1,148 per month ($13,700 on an

annual basis) and received $307 per month in SNAP benefits.

If the Ryan proposal had been in place in 2012 and was

implemented via across-the-board cuts, this family's monthly

benefits would have been cut by $110 per month--or about 36

percent.

SNAP Benefit Cuts Would Increase Hunger and Poverty

SNAP cuts of the magnitude that the Ryan budget proposes

would almost certainly lead to increases in hunger and

poverty. Emergency food providers report that more people ask

for help in the latter half of the month, after their SNAP

benefits run out. Under the Ryan budget's steep funding cuts,

a typical household's SNAP benefits would run out many days

earlier, placing greater strain on household finances (and on

emergency food providers) and significantly increasing the

risk of hunger.

Deep SNAP cuts also would cause more families and

individuals to fall into poverty and push poor families

deeper into poverty. Currently, SNAP helps lessen the extent

and severity of poverty; Census Bureau data on disposable

family income that include the value of SNAP and other non-

cash benefits and taxes show that:

SNAP lifted 4.9 million Americans above the poverty line in

2012, including 2.2 million children.

SNAP kept more children--1.4 million--from falling below

half of the poverty line in 2012, more than any other

program.

The Ryan SNAP cuts would thus have a sharp, adverse effect

on millions of the lowest-income Americans. Moreover, they

would not occur in isolation. The Ryan budget contains steep

cuts in other low-income assistance programs, compounding the

effects of the SNAP cuts. Many vulnerable families would lose

health coverage, housing assistance, and other important

supports such as child care at the same time they faced SNAP

cuts.

Cuts Could Be Even Larger Under a Block Grant

Block-granting SNAP, as Chairman Ryan proposes, would

eliminate its ability to respond automatically to the

increased need that results from rising poverty and

unemployment during economic downturns. Annual federal

funding would remain fixed, regardless of whether the economy

was in a recession or how severe a downturn was. As a result,

the House Budget Committee staff's estimate that the Ryan

plan would cut SNAP by $137 billion over ten years may

understate the magnitude of the cut--the cuts would be still

more severe if the economy performs less well over the coming

decade than CBO projects.

If a SNAP block grant had been in effect in 2013 at funding

levels set in 2007, before the recession, federal funding in

2013 would have been about 50 percent below actual funding

that year (excluding the Recovery Act benefit boost).

Furthermore, under a block grant, SNAP would not be able to

respond to natural disasters. Hurricane Sandy victims in New

York and New Jersey obtained temporary food aid through SNAP

in 2013, as did victims of disasters in five other states.

Also, under a block grant, many states would likely shift

funds away from food assistance to other purposes when they

faced large state budget shortfalls. SNAP includes several

non-food components, such as job training and related child

care; a block grant structure would enable states to divert

funds away from food to these purposes and withdraw state

funds currently spent on these services.

Finally, because of its capped funding structure, a block

grant like the one Chairman Ryan proposes would reverse the

recent progress made, on a bipartisan basis, to improve SNAP

participation among eligible low-income households. Viewing

SNAP as an important work support and health and nutrition

benefit, the last three Administrations, as well as governors

from across the political spectrum, have sought to boost

participation rates--especially among working-poor families

and low-income elderly people, the two groups with the lowest

participation rates. Overall, the efforts have paid off. SNAP

reached 79 percent of all eligible individuals in a typical

month in 2011 (the most recent year for which these data are

available), a significant improvement from 2002, when the

participation rate bottomed out at 54 percent. Participation

among eligible low-income working families rose from 43

percent in 2002 to about 67 percent in 2011. For the elderly,

it improved more modestly--from 26 percent in 2002 to about

39 percent in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big day for me down here on the House floor. I don't know if you were catching every word of the rule as it was being read, but what you've got here in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, is a rule that makes in order absolutely every germane amendment that was offered, not to one budget reform bill, not to two budget reform bills, but to three budget process reform bills.

We talk so much about numbers in this institution, Mr. Speaker. We talk about baselines. We talk about CBO scores. We also talk a lot about people. We talk a lot about families. We talk about why what we do here matters in the lives of folks back home.

Father Conroy prayed this morning, Mr. Speaker, that we could get out of some of our old habits that the inertia leads us to disagree and find those things around on which we do agree. There is one thing that is undisputed in this Chamber--in fact, on Capitol

Hill; in fact, in this entire town--Mr. Speaker, when it comes to budget process, and that is that every time we decide we are going to spend money today, we get a little boost in the economy, and that boost comes from a mortgaged future. We can get a little today at the expense of a little tomorrow, or, conversely, we can lose a little bit today in exchange for gaining a little bit tomorrow.

There is no free lunch when it comes to budgeting, Mr. Speaker. I only get to spend each dollar once in this institution, and I can either raise that dollar from today's taxpayers or I can borrow that dollar from tomorrow's taxpayers. There are arguments on both sides. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

What these three budget process bills before us today, Mr. Speaker, will do is make sure we are working from the same shared set of facts. Now, again, this rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for these three bills. It is H. Res. 539. It is a structured rule for H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. That is going to be on the floor today immediately following this rule. If we are able to secure passage, and I certainly hope that we can, we will be debating H.R. 1874.

H.R. 1874 will instruct the Congressional Budget Office to calculate, when we make these decisions, whether we are going to spend a little today and mortgage tomorrow or whether we are going to save a little bit today in exchange for growth tomorrow, to calculate that impact. It is not enough to spend the dollar, it is not enough to save the dollar. We have to explain, not just to our colleagues, but to the American people, what the benefit or the burden of that decision is going to be. H.R. 1874 brings some clarity to that decision.

One of my personal favorite bills, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 1871. H.R. 1871 and H.R. 1872 are also made in order by this bill. H.R. 1871 happens to be the Woodall bill, Mr. Speaker. It is the Baseline Reform bill. Candidly, I can't claim credit for it. I want to, pride of authorship and all. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth is it is the gentleman from the great State of Texas. Mr. Louie Gohmert has been fighting for this bill long before I arrived in this institution. I happened to get a seat on the Budget Committee; he happens to serve elsewhere; so I am carrying this language. I couldn't be prouder to do it, but I want to give credit where credit is due.

The fight that the gentleman from Texas has been making over the years--and it is not a fight against one another; it is a fight against inertia, as Father Conroy talked about this morning--is to say that it is just crazy in today's tight economic environment to assume that if the government spent X dollars this year, we are going to give them X plus 3 percent next year, that irrespective of what your mission is, irrespective of what your productivity is, irrespective of what your success is, we are just going to assume that your agency is going to get more money next year than it got this year. That is not the way anybody operates at home. That is not what we do around the dinner table. That is not what any business in America does. That is not what we should be doing.

So H.R. 1871 says we are going to assume you are going to get next year what you got this year, with absolutely no inflation whatsoever.

Now, this is not an area of wide agreement. I would argue what you get next year ought to be less than what you get this year, because we ought to expect some productivity increases from you. It is fair in the industrious society in which we live that we expect you to do more with less next year. But we are not trying to achieve all of that today. We are just saying that what you get next year is going to be what you get this year. Eliminate those automatic inflaters that bias us towards less productivity and more cost.

Finally, H.R. 1872, Mr. Speaker, that is a bill from my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). That bill says we ought to have accurate accounting, fair cost accounting, of government loan programs.

We are in the business of guaranteeing a whole lot of loans in this institution, Mr. Speaker, loans for all sorts of meritorious activities that we would agree on both sides of the aisle are worthy of being carried on, but the question is how do we account for that in the budget process.

Today we assume that those loans will never go bad--that those loans will never go bad--and that we will only reflect a cost of the American taxpayer guaranteeing those loans when and if those loans do go bad. But that is not what happens in the real world. That is not what we ask of our bankers down on Main Street. That is not what we ask of any financial institution. We would run you right out of town if you tried to do your accounting that way in the real world, Mr. Speaker.

So what Mr. Garrett says is: Why can't we apply real world accounting to this institution? Why can't we hold ourselves to the same high standard that we hold folks back home? I applaud him for that. I think that is something, again, that brings us together rather than divides us.

What I like most about this rule, though, Mr. Speaker, is that when the amendments were offered--and that is the way the process goes, for folks who don't watch the Rules Committee as closely as my friend from Florida and I do. Members of Congress come; they submit their amendments to the Rules Committee; and the Rules Committee decides what is made in order. But we do that in consultation with the Parliamentarians. We need to make sure that amendments are germane. We want to make sure that the conversation is on the topic that the bill is on. We don't allow nongermane amendments most of the time, but sometimes Members submit amendments in good faith that don't comply with the rules as they were submitted, but they can be worked on to make them better.

What I am particularly proud of, Mr. Speaker, is that, when we received some amendments that were not quite within the four corners of the rules, rather than just rejecting those amendments out of hand, which would have been a perfectly appropriate response, we didn't do what was appropriate; we did what was right. And that was to go and work with those Members to improve those amendments, get them within the four corners of the parliamentary process, and make those in order today.

So, again, every single germane amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on each of these three bills was made in order for debate under the bill. We will do the first of those bills today. If this rule passes, we will do the remaining two next week, and all done in the name of transparency and accurate information for the American people.

It is perfectly legitimate to have your own opinion about what the Federal budget ought to look like, but you are not entitled to your own facts about what the impact of those decisions will be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to thank my friend from Florida for laying out exactly what the case is that needs to be made today.

It just so happens all of those spending priorities that the gentleman from Florida mentioned are spending priorities I share-- investments in education; investments in roads and bridges; investments in cutting-edge research that makes a difference in people's lives, not just in terms of treatments, but in terms of cures.

In the absence of crystal-clear budgeting, in the absence of the reforms that we have proposed here today, the $5 trillion that the Budget Committee passed that proposes to reduce Federal spending over the next 10 years is exactly the same as the interest that that very same budget proposes to pay over the next 10 years.

I want you to hear that, Mr. Speaker. Every single reduction in spending that the gentleman just laid out is necessitated because, dollar for dollar, we are wasting those same amounts on paying the debts that previous Congresses have racked up.

That is a Budget Committee-passed budget. The President's budget, Mr. Speaker, proposes to spend $6 trillion over the next 10 years on interest alone--interest alone.

Mr. Speaker, by not taking responsibility today, not only are we mortgaging our children's future by piling these debts on them, we are trading away opportunities to make a difference in their future.

Because those dollars that we are sending to the Chinese and Germans who loan us money and the money that we are spending to pay our debts is money that we could be spending on those shared investment priorities that the gentleman from Florida and I have in common.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Nugent), one of the great members of the Rules Committee, a former sheriff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It never surprises me how much I have in common with my friend from Florida. We come from very different parts of the world, Mr. Speaker. If you go to many events in this town, they will generally have a Southeastern State section and a Florida section. Florida is a little bit different from the rest of those Southeastern States. 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.

The debate is not about whether or not we have an obligation to our neighbors. We do. The question is are we meeting our obligation to our neighbors, and I will tell you that 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 no ladder out is a cruel and unsatisfactory path for this House.

I was talking with a gentleman down in southeast D.C., Mr. Speaker, and he runs a project that takes folks from homelessness and drug addiction to employment. He said: The problem with you Republicans is all you do is offer people hope: pick yourself up by your bootstraps; tomorrow will be better than today. He said hope in the absence of access is futile. He said: But Democrats offer help. If you are naked, I will clothe you. If you are hungry, I will feed you. If you are in prison, I will visit you. But he said help in the absence of a pathway out is to condemn someone to a life of poverty. He said: What you all have to do is to come together. You have to provide that help to meet people's immediate needs, but you have to provide that pathway out.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care if you are 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 have 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 make your own decisions.

I listened deeply to the words of my friend and I looked for where we might find that common ground, because, Mr. Speaker, I would 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 would say: You have got to let us kick the bad actors out. The residents would say: We have got folks here who are trying to make a difference, and we have got folks here who are bringing us down. You have got to give us the ability to keep our kids safe. You have got to give us the ability to keep our community safe. You have got to give us the ability to run our lives.

But Federal law says no, Mr. Speaker. Federal law says we know what is fair; we know what is 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 will enable tomorrow to be better than today.

Mr. Speaker, with this budget--again, 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 is 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. Eighteen months are eroded out of the next 10 years with interest alone.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act does, for example, is say you have got to project out over 40 years.

You will 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 or not those were successes or failures, but this is the way that budget sorted itself out. He said: I am not going to spend more than $1 trillion on this program.

Now, 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, but he said: I don't want to spend more than $1 trillion on this program.

So, instead of creating a 10-year program, he created a 6-year program, put the implementation off for 4 years. Critical health care services, absolutely necessary we provide these services to the American people, but they can wait 4 years. We have got families in need, families that don't have options, families that don't have choices, but I am not going to help them get choices for another 4 years. Six-year program, $1 trillion.

The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says we need to look at programs over 40 years because that $1 trillion, 6-year program explodes in years 7 and 8 and 9 and 10. And it may be money well spent. I hope that is what the gentleman from Florida believes because I know he supported the program. I don't believe it is money well spent. I think we are losing trillions of dollars in health care costs that could be better controlled. I think we are losing trillions of dollars in care that could have been provided to folks but, instead, 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 that are multigenerational, that we don't have access to long-term data?

The gentleman from Florida says it seems disingenuous for us to pretend inflation does not exist. That is not what I am proposing, but disingenuous to pretend that it does. I think it is similarly odd to pretend that the program stops after 10 years instead of it continuing on in perpetuity, as these programs do. These bills do nothing but provide us with other information.

I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. My experience in this House with a voting card began in 2011. And while the gentleman is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, when he talks about inflation and how services can be eroded, my experience in this House, your experience in this House, Mr. Speaker, is that we spent less in 2011 than we did 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 in 2014 than we did in 2013. Every year I have been here we have spent less. I think that is what our constituency 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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say to my friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, I, too, am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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 is a term called ``Washington, D.C., math,'' which, as my friend from Florida, the sheriff, described earlier is when you can raise spending by $5 and call it a cut. That is 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 is what these three measures before us today propose, Mr. Speaker.

I held a townhall meeting, Mr. Speaker, about 12 months ago. They asked if I was going to support the congressional pay raise. I said: Well, we are not going to do a congressional pay raise this year, but I hope one day to come home and tell you that I have earned it.

I do. I want to show up back home, Mr. Speaker, and tell folks that, dadgummit: I have earned it. Be proud of what we have done in Washington, D.C. I have earned it.

I think that is 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 increase 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 have earned it. I have earned it.

I am not just talking about making a difference in people's lives; here are the results. I am not just talking about lifting people up; here are the results.

The hardest thing to end in this town, Mr. Speaker, is a Federal program. Once they get started, they seem to last forever. Mission creep. If they solve one mission, they are going to adopt a new mission, roll right on down the line. Nobody wants to work themselves out of a job.

Is it so outrageous, 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, that kind of budget transparency has become relevant only to the fringe of America. It is not the America I know.

I tell the young people--and I try to start every day back home with young people, Mr. Speaker. I say, listen, just tell me what you want in terms of support for higher education because the only dollars I am going to spend, I am going to borrow from you. I am borrowing it from you.

We all love our children. We all want our children to succeed. But we are 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, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It asks that for those programs that are going to have a big impact on our economy, that we look not just at what the 1-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 is going to cost us and how it is going to benefit us. We don't get that information today, as the gentleman from Florida, the sheriff, noted. We have not reformed the Congressional Budget Act since 1974. That kind of multigenerational information is worthy of this body. This bill would provide it to us for the very first time.

The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. If you are going to lend money, you ought to account for it; you ought to evaluate it.

We often 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 promises that we have made. I mean, you know how Social Security is funded, for example, Mr. Speaker. It is today's workers that are paying for today's retirees. There is not a dime set aside for today's workers when they retire.

The true cost of government, the true national debt, as recently calculated by Dr. Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, is over $200 trillion-- $200 trillion. ``Trillion''--we throw these words around as if they are nothing--that is 1 million millions. We have not had 1 million days since the birth of Christ, Mr. Speaker. We won't for another 730 years. Mr. Speaker, 1 million millions is 1 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 am 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.

Then finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill, again, sponsored by my good friend from Texas, Louie Gohmert, a long champion that I have the privilege of serving with in this Congress, the Baseline Reform Act. The Baseline Reform Act says, if you are going to raise spending by $1, you are actually raising spending by $1.

I know it sounds radical, Mr. Speaker. I know it sounds like the province of the fringe, but it is not. If you are going to raise spending by $1, you should say you are going to raise spending by $1. Dadgummit, Mr. Speaker, I can't even have a town hall meeting these days and talk about budget numbers--because I am a budget guy--I can't talk about budget numbers without someone raising their hand and saying, now, Rob, when you talk about spending reductions, is that really a spending reduction, or is that just a reduction in the rate of growth? That is how it has become.

For 4 years in this institution, we have spent less each and every succeeding year. Now, 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, as we are taking those dollars from hardworking American taxpayers across the country, that we identify high-priority spending and low-priority spending.

I will take the work at NIH, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker. That is high-priority spending. That is basic research that is going to make a difference in people's lives and not a difference in something minor, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps a life-and-death difference. It is a goal that we share. It is a goal that the Appropriations Committee shares. It is a goal that we are going to be able to realize.

But I don't think there is a single man or woman at NIH, I don't think there is a single professor at NIH, I don't think there is a single Ph.D. candidate at NIH who is embarrassed to come up here and say, I have done well. I am a good steward of the taxpayers' money. Trust me again.

Mr. Speaker, that is where I want to take us with these budget bills. I want to have folks proud of how they are spending the dollars, proud to come and share that with us here in this 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 has made in order every amendment that was germane to these three bills. I ask them to support this rule so that we can begin voting these bills this very day.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1010.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and underlying bills.

In my friend's commentary, I perceived him as being very reasonable, particularly when he gets to the part of the rule that deals with those amendments that were made in order that are germane. It is a particular concern that he has demonstrated in the period that he has been on the Rules Committee. He also is an advocate for open rules.

That said, one of the down sides to our process, in my judgment, is that I would imagine that at least a significant portion of this body-- not the majority--don't even know what we are debating today and won't know until they come here to vote. For that reason, we should make open rules; whereas, ideas that germinate during the course of the debate could be put forward by Members under our rules process.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of three bills. Before getting into it, normally when people leave our offices or when we complete the process of debating a measure and want to give kudos to the staff, we do so at the end of the process. But today I want to recognize the rather extraordinary staff on both sides of the Rules

Committee, and particularly the young man seated next to me, Ian Wolf, who labors actively to help me put words together to come here with, and two young men that are working in the office with me: Tom Carnes, who recently came to me as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Maine, and Mike Sykes, a wounded warrior. Many of the words that I will speak henceforth are from those three gentlemen, and I thank them for that.

Normally, like my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), we both are, in my judgment, good extemporaneous speakers. But today, I am going to stick to the script because of these two young men. Then, if I am provoked by my friend from Georgia, I will speak extemporaneously.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of three bills, all of which impose tortuous new rules on an already convoluted budget process and attempt to embed Republican dogma into what is intended to be an objective analysis based on reality, not fantasy.

The bouquet of imagery to explain this latest budgetary behavior is certainly painful: Yogi Berra and deja vu all over again; Groundhog Day with Bill Murray's character, Phil Connors, doomed to repeat the same day over and over again; Sisyphus sentenced for his hubris to push a boulder up a mountain only to see it careen to the bottom and have to start all over again.

We have seen these proposals before, Mr. Speaker. Yet, once again, my friends across the aisle try their best to throw up smokescreens right and further right. Once again, my friends, led by Chairman Paul Ryan, present reforms that are not common sense but that are actually nonsense. Once again, Republicans propose budget process changes that are nothing more than gimmicks to eliminate the spending on essential government services and to dress up tax cuts for the wealthy. Once again, we have to waste time considering budgetary gimmicks like ``dynamic scoring'' and whether we should factor in inflation when accounting for future spending instead of dealing with the important issues of the day.

The need for immigration reform isn't going anywhere, friends. The need for investment in our infrastructure isn't going anywhere. The need to provide health care for our veterans is not going anywhere, and will I tell you that your budget gimmicks aren't going anywhere either, and you know it. You can pass these gimmicks all day long. You are in the majority. You can pass them all day--24 hours a day--and twice and three times on Sunday, but you know that they are dead on arrival in the Senate.

So let's turn to serious business, business the American people would like us to take up, rather than wasting our time and the time of millions of Americans. The changes envisioned within these bills tie Congress and the Congressional Budget Office up in knots in an effort to prove that conservative ideology about taxes and spending is going to grow our Nation's economy--not create more jobs, not stimulate demand, not invest in infrastructure or in education or in any of the many endeavors that are critical to improving the lives of all Americans.

In H.R. 1871--Mr. Woodall's favorite bill and for good reason as he is the author of this iteration of it, and he gave attribution to the person who has struggled to put this measure forward--it is proposed that the Congressional Budget Office not include annual inflation when making its budget baselines. This seems like a rather mundane, technical change, but it isn't.

I would be pleased to support this, Mr. Speaker, because it means that, in making my own personal budget projections, I can simply ignore the fact that the costs for everyday items and activities tend to go up every year. I can just assume that what I am paying today I can keep paying 10 years from now and still expect the exact same number of goods and services. But, of course, we all know that isn't true. Simply wishing away inflation won't make it so. Fuzzy math, as it has been described by some, does not equal fiscal responsibility.

By eliminating inflation adjustments from discretionary spending projections, Republicans are actually reducing the funding for a Federal program. Since the dollar amount would stay the same every year, the number of services that could be covered would decrease. I hasten to add that I agree with my friend Mr. Woodall that accountability ought to be factored in and that these programs should be able to perform in a way that is accountable to the public. When they do not, they should be dispensed with, and that is a prerogative that we can exercise, but it doesn't have to be done the way that it is put forward. It is our responsibility to have the oversight of these structures in our government.

Over the long term, this results in a massive decrease in essential services that millions of Americans rely on. This technical change then is actually a backdoor effort to slowly starve necessary government programs. Rather than be up front about which programs my friends on the other side want to eliminate, they would rather put sneaky rules into place to guarantee the outcome they want without having to have an open debate.

Through H.R. 1874, Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to introduce dynamic scoring into the CBO's projection process. Dynamic scoring? Take a closer look. It is more like dynamic stealing. By implementing this fantasy math, the Republicans artificially inflate the costs of important programs as a way to steal them out from underneath those who are most in need of them. They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax cuts for the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while investments in programs that help everyday Americans do not. Let me repeat that. They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax cuts for the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while investments in programs that help everyday Americans do not. I have lived here long enough to see ``trickle down'' fail repeatedly. Republicans make it easier to cut taxes for the rich rather than to build bridges and schools for the rest of us.

This bill specifically instructs the CBO to ignore the positive economic effects that would come about from investments in things like infrastructure and education. I want to underscore the word ``infrastructure.'' We talk about it all the time around here, and a decade ago, one of our colleagues spent a portion of his career here asking us to spend money on bridges. When I came here in 1992, we had 14,000 bridges in this Nation that were in need of repair, and we have not addressed the circumstances surrounding that, and we need to and we can. It is as if dealing with infrastructure and education--as if spending on things that Americans want and need--won't boost the economy, which is the way their approach suggests.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are at it again with H.R. 1872. This proposal seeks to significantly change how the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office calculate the costs of government loans and loan guarantees. This bill would just add an extra price tag to programs based on what an individual would pay for a loan in the private market. Never mind the fact that the United States Government is not an individual acting in a private credit market.

What this bill really represents is another attempt by the Republicans to make important programs for the poor and middle class families appear too expensive to be continued--programs meant to help young people get an education, programs that help struggling families afford homes, programs that help the elderly in their need of security in their failing health, programs that help farmers and small businesses grow this economy. By artificially inflating the costs of these programs, the Republicans hope to fool us into thinking that we can't afford them.

But as far as I know, April Fool's Day started and ended on Tuesday. I will tell you this: I am not going to be fooled; my constituents aren't going to be fooled; and the American people aren't going to be fooled by your gimmicks--and these budget bills are only the appetizers.

The entree was served up by Chairman Ryan when he recently introduced his next budget, which he dubbed--and I was reading it last night--the Path to Prosperity, but it would be more accurately called a path to poverty. As much as I had hoped for the opportunity to turn down a path where we consider meaningful legislation, we are again forced to battle against Chairman Ryan's latest march down his

path to poverty, and since we have already adopted top-line numbers for the next two budget cycles, there is no reason for this budget beyond feeding the political base of my friends on the other side.

We will see the bumper stickers. We will hear the talk. We will hear the echo chamber recite the mantra of those who would feed their base. I suppose this budget is a solid start for a 10-minute standup set at your local yuck-yucks, but that is about the best that I can say for it.

I mean, you are going to cut spending by $966 billion over the next 10 years by cutting funding for food stamps, by cutting funding for income assistance to help needy families, by cutting Pell grants for kids to go to college. You can't be serious. You are going to implement draconian cuts to programs millions of Americans rely upon, but you make sure that we increase defense spending. You can't be serious.

Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are really showing us here is their blueprint for America's future. You don't even have to look that closely to see that this blueprint creates nothing but structural integrity problems for our economy. The Republicans' blueprint lays bare their full frontal assault on middle class families and the poor. Their blueprint calls for turning Medicare into a voucher program. They will describe it differently, but it comes out to nothing more than a voucher program. Their blueprint calls for non-defense discretionary spending to be cut to the tune of $791 billion. This will result in draconian cuts to education, public works, medical research, and the list continues. It goes on and on.

Do you want to better yourself by obtaining a college degree? Ryan's road to ruin is going to make sure that there is no money there for you to do so.

Do you want to help grow our economy by shipping your goods on our roads and bridges? Good luck, since your goods will undoubtedly be held up at one of the many Ryan roadblocks to prosperity that will strip the budget of much-needed infrastructure investments.

Are you or is any member of your family suffering from a disease, the cure for which would certainly be furthered by Federal medical research dollars? Sorry, but with this Republican budget proposed by Mr. Ryan, you have found yourself on Mr. Ryan's fast track to despair.

Rather than using the budget process to lead this country into a new era of economic growth, Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, cut programs for everyone else, and then feel like they have set this country on the right track. This is no way to run an economy, no way to run a budget process, and it is no way to stick up for the millions of struggling Americans, as my friends on the Democratic side are doing and have done for years, who need us to focus on improving the economy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I thank Mike and Tim and Ian and the Rules Committee staff who are working with me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Now, I turn to the extemporaneous side. Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening of next week, my friend Mr. Woodall and I will be in the Rules Committee, and we will be taking up the Ryan budget. I might add that we use the names of individuals.

I have great respect for Paul Ryan. I think he is a brilliant young man; and clearly, ideologically, he and I have our differences.

I remember being on the floor and hearing the two best speeches in the 21 years I have been here that were made pertaining to issues of the moment. One was made by Ron Dellums, chairman of Armed Services at the time, and the other by John Kasich, who is now the Governor of Ohio.

I still consider those two speeches to be the best that I have heard in the time that I am here, mine and Mr. Woodall's notwithstanding.

On that night that Mr. Kasich made his remarks, I listened very intently to him. I forget the exact numbers that the budget was proposing, but after he finished his remarks, I went up to him and congratulated him on his remarks

I then said to him what I will say to Mr. Ryan at some point in the future: I understand what it is that you want to spend, and I believe that we would probably spend right at or about the same amount of money. The difference is what you want to spend it on and what I want to spend it on.

That is what I said to John that night. I find myself in that situation repeatedly through the years. I myself, and certainly many others, am a champion of those who are less fortunate in our society, and I don't believe that my friends are unmindful of the great need that our constituents have, be they Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise situated politically.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who are not as well off as some others in the country. There should be nothing to decry the fact that there are some in our society who have done exceedingly well, even during recessions.

I have a friend that is a billionaire. He told me he made money during the Depression, he made money before the Second World War, after the Second World War, and made money after every recession, largely for the reason that he knows how to make money; and I don't begrudge him that.

But that same individual told me that any amount of taxes that he paid, he would prefer to see that it goes to educating our children appropriately, and if it required him to pay more taxes, he would have no problem doing so, and toward that end, I feel the same way.

People think that those of us up here in Congress live a life of luxury with a high salary of $174,000 a year. Well, the simple fact of the matter is--and rightly, perhaps--we have not had a raise for Congress Members for 5 years.

At the very same time, if I use myself as an example, my rent here in this town has gone up $600 during that period of time. My salary didn't go up. So where was I supposed to meet these needs?

The simple fact is that, when we talk about a household budget, that is an entirely different set of circumstances than a Federal budget or a State budget or a city budget. They do not operate the same, and we should stop making that analogy.

It is not like I sit down and fill out my budget. This is an extremely complex process. The Congressional Budget Office only gives us the numbers that we tell them that the policy is going to be, and they tell us what the numbers are going to look like. They don't provide the numbers. They don't do the oversight on the programs that we make here.

We don't have to just give them the money, but if we set a baseline and if we do allow for inflation, when those programs have failed or those that are sunsetting--and more of them should sunset and too many of them have failed--then that is our responsibility.

When we cut poor people, when we cut middle class people in this country--that is the base of this country, that is the bedrock of this country. It has been and will continue to be.

If we go the path that my friends want us to pass through, what we will do is allow for those people that are better off in our society-- who could afford to help more the poor and the middle class--to get richer, and it will cause more middle class people to become poorer; and then the needs will be greater. If we don't see ourselves as a better society than that, then something is drastically wrong with us.

I don't begrudge a single rich person on Earth, but I do feel strongly responsible for those that are poor and not poor necessarily by virtue of their circumstances.

What we tend to do to poor people here is, rather than ask them what we can do with them to lift them out of poverty, we do things to them. That is why most of us know that they won't vote at voting time, largely for the reason that they have the most reasons to vote and, at the same time, have the relative least reasons to vote.

The insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate housing, inadequate educational opportunity persists in this country, and the fact of the matter is that we can do better--and we should do better-- by those that are poor. We should do something meaningful to create jobs.

After Monday of next week, when we talk about this budget, I defy my friends to tell me that they are going to put that budget on the floor. When we vote on it Wednesday, I say let's go into debate Thursday and debate it until its conclusion and then vote on it.

I guarantee you we are not going to vote on the Ryan budget, everybody knows that, and I challenge my friends to bring it forth any day after next Monday when we do the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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 am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

My colleague just concluded his remarks by saying in 2011, 2012, 2013 they spent less, and he is correct. But in 2011, more people needed food stamps; in 2012, more people needed housing; in 2013, more people needed to get across safe bridges and safe roads. So I am not sure where the twain meets.

I agree with my colleague that he and I have more in common than we do differences, but I hearken back to my earlier comment. 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 sigh 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 pummeling 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 road, a road that helps the poor ascend out from poverty, not a ladder out that has its ladder rungs with holes in it, as my friend discussed that ladder out, a road that helps middle class families more fully achieve their dreams, a road that helps our businesses and economy grow, a road that embraces our veterans and fights for them as vigorously as they fought for us. And if Fort Hood doesn't teach us anything about the mental health of our soldiers and our society, then I don't know what will.

Unfortunately, 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 for the millions of Americans trying to fully realize their dreams.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal 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 material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

I was interested to hear my colleague from Georgia end his comments by saying we should have more information rather than less. As I look at this legislation, on page 3, 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 that we might make in other areas to power our economy--research and development, for example.

It is particularly interesting because the Republican budget that was just released and voted on the other night in the Budget Committee, according to CBO, in the next couple of years will create a drag on the economy, will actually hurt jobs in the next couple of years. Why is that? That is, 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 is kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman, that they specifically excluded the CBO from doing an analysis on that.

Now, 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.

If you were the CEO of a company and you were projecting your growth and you were projecting your income, you would want to look at how much you are going to make from certain investments you make in your workforce and those kinds of investments. 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 is 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 worked in the 2000s. We had big tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. A few years later, for a variety of reasons, the economy tanked. 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 am all for additional information. 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 scores.

They have eight. They have eight scenarios. One projects .1 percent growth; one projects 1.6 percent growth. That is, of course, the one that Chairman Camp ran with in all the information he put out. But what he failed to mention is they came up with eight scenarios. The reason they came up with eight scenarios is 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 is why they had eight.

Now you want them to somehow come up with one when they have repeatedly 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 legislation.

I have trouble with this legislation for a variety of reasons; one being, when it comes to tax policy, we have been informed by the experts that it is hard to pinpoint one number and boil it down to a growth figure. 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 are certainly not asking for more information when it comes to those important investments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, look, the gentleman who just spoke mentioned some important examples. If you are a CEO, you want to know when 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 3, our Republican colleagues are asking for information on economic growth impacts of all sorts of things, but they specifically exclude anything that comes out of the Appropriations Committee.

It is 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. CBO says that will have a negative economic impact over the next couple of years. So it is not surprising that they don't want that information provided as part of this analysis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Again, it is, perhaps, not surprising. I think the American public knows that we have a short-term budget agreement, the Murray-Ryan agreement, but if you look at the budget that Republicans in Congress are proposing, it calls for a 24 percent cut to the current services in the recent bipartisan legislation over a 10-year period.

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-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 reduce the deficit from closing special interest tax breaks.

So it is no surprise to me that they would want to exclude the economic impacts of those investments that they are dramatically cutting. As I said earlier, the CBO, in its most recent analysis of the House Republican budget, says it will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. It is very interesting 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 the CBO to give us an analysis, when they have a specific bill, so they can determine the economic benefit and the impact of it. That is a good thing, and the CBO has done that for immigration reform. In fact, of all of the pieces of legislation that are before this House right now, one of the things that could have the most immediate 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, over year 10, it will actually boost economic growth by 5 percent 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 the 20-year window, by almost $1 trillion. That is an analysis that we all should benefit from.

Interestingly, while that would provide great economic growth, based on CBO reports, and 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, 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 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 gave eight different models based on different assumptions. Our Republican colleagues are trying to say to professional economists, We really don't care what you say; you come up with a particular answer. Whereas, we think we should be asking for information in every case where it can be plausibly provided. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues don't want it everywhere it can be plausibly provided because they specifically exclude the economic benefit of important investments in our economy and jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing our Republican colleagues say they want the ``complete picture'' and ``more information is better than less.'' We agree. This is why it is so interesting, that they specifically exclude information based on bills that come out of the Appropriations Committee that call for investments in our economy and in areas that can help promote job growth.

They say they want more information, but their bill says they want it only in one area and not in another.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess I am not surprised, given the fact that the budget that the Republicans just voted out of the Budget Committee and expect to be on the floor next week makes dramatic, historic cuts to important investments that this country has made in the past. In fact, it is 40 percent below the lowest investments as a share of the economy we have made since the 1950s.

This country has been able to compete and has been an economic powerhouse, in part, because of the great investments we have made as a Nation in important areas like science, research, infrastructure, and education; and yet Republicans want to exclude that in this bill.

Again, it is not surprising because the Congressional Budget Office, the very entity that they say they want to provide us this analysis, has said, over the next couple of years, their budget is going to slow down the economy and economic growth, in part, because of the deep cuts they make in this one area of budget that they don't want this information about. Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just 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 to make some important investments that can help our economy grow? They say they want all this additional information, but apparently, they didn't.

Again, I say it is 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 are going to have an amendment later on offered by Mr. Connolly--and he will talk about 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.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The CBO provides lots of information right now. I hope all Members of Congress will take advantage of the information they provide.

We have now heard, for the second time today, that the Affordable Care Act has cost the economy jobs. Well, the CBO 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. Now, they said, in the outyears, 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.

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 where they got tax-benefited health care.

So I encourage my colleagues to read the CBO reports that have already been issued on the Affordable Care Act. I also urge them to read the CBO 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 turned that around. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

So it is great our colleagues are asking the Congressional Budget Office for more information, and we welcome that. It would be great if they read the information the Congressional Budget Office has already issued.

I just want to make one final point, Mr. Chairman. I have made it before, but it is important because we keep saying we want more information, more complete information, and if you read this legislation, it says that. Then it says: except. We want information except. We don't want any information on the job impact of those parts of our budget that invest in jobs and our economy, like R&D at places like NIH, National Institutes of Health, like our kids' education. We want all the information, but don't tell us about the benefits of those investments.

And I wonder why. It is because the Republican budget slashes our investments in those areas. So don't tell us about the impact of that, Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), who will be offering an amendment a little bit later.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was glad the last speaker mentioned the CBO report on immigration reform. I just wish that, if they really wanted to have a pro-growth policy, they would adopt the bipartisan immigration legislation that the CBO wrote about, because what the CBO report said was 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 pro-growth revenue, it would actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $190 billion, and almost a trillion over 20. So, great.

I haven't really heard a response to this, Mr. Chairman, but we want more information. CBO 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 investment in 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 research, yet the Republican budget, if you apply it across the board, cut 24 percent--cut--over the next 10 years from the amount for research at NIH that was in the Ryan-Murray document. Again, not surprising they don't want the Congressional Budget Office to look in 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 of years, these fiscal policies would reduce output and employment below the levels projected in CBO's baseline--translation: it would reduce economic activity and reduce job growth over the next couple of years.

So, again, not surprising that in the legislation before us, pro- growth budgeting, our Republican colleagues don't want the CBO to tell us about the pro-growth benefits of those important investments.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know I sound like a broken record. Our colleagues keep saying they want more information, but the bill specifically excludes a major portion of information.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Ms. Jackson Lee. We have heard from our colleagues all morning that they want more information, a more complete picture of the impact of legislation on our economy.

Well, the legislation before us, as we have pointed out repeatedly today, exempts the part of the budget that deals with investments in discretionary spending. From the start, it does that.

Then they said no to amendments on the impact on jobs. They have said no to getting more information on the impact on State and local governments and local taxpayers, and now, they are saying no to getting more information on vital portions of our economy.

This doesn't say the CBO can't look at other things. It just says that it is important that they look at this part of the economy. There are HUBZones in every part of the country, and they are an important part of our strategy that a lot of us are working towards to try to make sure that everyone in this country has an opportunity to move forward and succeed.

So it is discouraging to hear our colleagues reject a request for more information on jobs, local taxpayers, and now in this particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Let me thank the distinguished ranking member and 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, 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 families whose loved ones have lost their lives and those who suffer. It is important for us as a Nation to be responsive to their needs. 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. Besides 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 planning the Poor People's March in 1968 to raise incomes and the quality of life of men and women across America.

So I raise the question of where we are in 2014. This is not a conversation that we easily engage with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

As you are passing the budget resolution, the process that you are in, to my knowledge, there was no effort to include an increase to the minimum wage.

There was no effort to ensure that 164,000 persons in the State of Texas would get an unemployment insurance extension, thereby ceasing them from losing their homes or being evicted from their rental properties or literally not being able to support their families.

Now, we have on the floor of the House legislation that simply exacerbates the circumstance of those who are aspiring to be in the middle class. 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, it was even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the supercommittee, which, by the way, with no condemnation, did not work. It could not get a common ground.

You would wonder why Republicans are pushing this dynamic scoring bill. It is because they claim the traditional cost estimates prepared by the CBO are not enough, when we have used the Congressional Budget Office for decades, and it has been an effective tool to balance between revenue and tax.

So you wonder why the dynamic scoring comes in because it breaks the backs of poor people and the middle class.

We believe that it is simply an attempt to force Congress and the CBO to accept this concept of dynamic scoring and promote the efforts of the Republicans to, again, give more tax cuts.

We know that tax cuts did not work. In the good intentions of the Bush administration, those tax cuts put us in the predicament we are in, after leaving the Clinton administration with a billion-dollar surplus and the ability to invest in infrastructure.

I remember the smiles on those citizens during that timeframe that the economy was turning.

In the context of this particular legislation, a budget bill led by Mr. Ryan has now given a $200,000 tax cut already to those who hold most of the wealth, but yet cutting Medicaid and cutting food stamps to give an opportunity for soldiers' families to be able to eat.

I am against this bill because I think CBO 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, and good health care.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could very well be entitled the Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in essence what's going on here.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.

Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.

It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.

The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.

None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate than the current way.''

Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better, Mr. Chairman, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.

Mr. Chairman, where have we heard that before?

I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down form of budgeting.

Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone program.

The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program ``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.''

It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the federal government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program.

Mr. Chairman, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.

The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.''

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ``My main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''

Mr. Chairman, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time-- though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with the spirit of cooperation and recognition that there are definitive distinctions and differences of opinion on the underlying legislation. I am trying to make this bill better.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, if this bill passes, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act. My amendment only seeks to look at the effects, should this measure pass, on HUBZones as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chairman, this bill could be entitled the ``Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Act.'' If that is the essence of the bill, we need to find the impact of it.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt measure that macroeconomic 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 HUBZone, 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 that support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone.

I recall that the Bush administration tried to use dynamic scoring to estimate the cost their tax cuts--asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue in sort of a trickle-down budgeting, but the question is, these smaller businesses that are attempting to thrive and impacted by Small Business Administration programs, how would this type of structure impact them.

The HUBZone program is a small business Federal contracting assistance program whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.

That is an important responsibility, and it is an important goal for this Nation because we know that small businesses can help generate any number of jobs; and the assistance, I know, personally, to small business has been effective and productive.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1874, The Pro-Growth Budget Act of 2013.

My amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis, estimates of the potential impact, if any, on HUBZone areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUB Zones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

In all actuality, Mr. Chair, this bill could very well be entitled the, Revenge of Dynamic Scoring Champions Act, because that's in essence what's going on here.

Dynamic scoring is an attempt to measure the macroeconomic effects of policy changes before they happen, and continues to pop up everywhere; in fact, even in negotiations of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the Super Committee.

Dynamic scoring finds its roots in the anti-tax movement. Dynamic scoring is problematic for the agencies that score and estimate the cost of legislation, and has been soundly rejected.

It is clear from the bill's language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts.

The bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules.

None other than Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ``generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping.

That has been part of the challenge of moving to something called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that was any more accurate than the current way.''

Believers in dynamic scoring argue that tax cuts pay for themselves, generally by spurring so much economic growth, to the extent that revenues will actually increase. If I didn't know any better Mr. Chair, I'd think they were talking to us about trickle-down economics.

Mr. Chair, where have we heard that before?

I recall that the Bush administration attempted to impose the use of dynamic scoring to estimate the cost of its tax cuts, asserting that tax cuts would increase revenue enough to pay for themselves, sort of a trickle-down form of budgeting.

Unfortunately Mr. Chair, the Bush tax cuts did no such thing, but instead caused our national debt to explode. My amendment only seeks to look at the effect, should this measure pass, on HUBZones, as defined in the Small Business Act.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Empowerment Contracting, better known as the HUBZone program.

The HUBZone program is a small business federal contracting assistance program

``whose primary objective is job creation and increasing capital investment in distressed communities.''

It provides participating small businesses located in areas with low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment rates with contracting opportunities in the form of ``set-asides,'' sole-source awards, and price-evaluation preferences.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2010, the Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program.

Mr. Chair, that's the gist of my amendment--job creation--because that's what we should be talking about in this Committee today.

The Budget Committee has held hearings on the general topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness, testified that, ``It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.''

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that, ``My main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search for more tools.''

Mr. Chair, dynamic scoring is the wrong tool at the wrong time-- though--in the interest of fairness to the small businesses in distressed communities around this country, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, even though I have serious reservations about dynamic scoring.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the full Budget Committee and thank him again for his leadership.

I 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 FY2010, the Federal Government awarded contracts valued at $12.7 billion to HUBZone certified businesses, with about $3.6 billion of that amount awarded through the HUBZone program. That is an investment in small business. That is the creation of jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the gist of my amendment is jobs and what will be the impact of this type of budget structuring on the HUBZones. Why wouldn't we want that information?

Let me quote former Budget chairman Jim Nussle, a Republican witness who testified:

It may not be that the budget process is broken. It may not

be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the

fact that the tools are not even being used.

If you are going to add more responsibilities to the CBO, give them additional tools to assess who the job-creating small businesses are going to be impacted by this bill.

Dr. Philip Joyce, former CBO staff member, said:

My main message is that most of the tools that you need to

solve the budget problems faced by the country are already in

your toolbox.

Therefore, I am saying if we are putting another tool in the toolbox, if this bill passes, then give them the ability to make sure that we are not killing small businesses that are impacted by the HUBZone 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, and I would ask for his reconsideration. This is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.