Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1874) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1871) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1872) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to increase transparency in Federal budgeting, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill, which is H.R. 1872, which is the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up the bill (H.R. 1872) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to increase transparency in Federal budgeting, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Paul Ryan, and the Budget Committee staff as well for their hard work on H.R. 1872, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act.

As many have talked about before, our budget process in this country is broken. Simply put, we need to make the budget process more transparent. So the bill before the House today, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, is, as we like to say, a commonsense attempt to introduce more sunshine and common sense into our budget process. So what would this legislation do?

Most importantly, the bill will require that the Federal Government apply something called fair value accounting. Now, that is the same credit accounting standards as the private sector uses when making or guaranteeing loans. So fair value accounting provides a more robust or more complete picture of the cost to the taxpayer of government loan programs or government lending programs. So fair value accounting accomplishes this how? By accounting for an additional market-risk premium.

Also, the bill recognizes the budgetary impact of government- sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So this bill would then bring these wards of the taxpayer from out of the shadows and onto the budget.

So why exactly do we need this specific piece of legislation here today? Well, without getting into the weeds too much, the simplest explanation is that there is no such thing in this country or in the world as a free lunch when it comes to a government program. The costs are always borne by someone, and in this case, it is borne by the American people.

The facts indicate that not only is government costly, but also government costs more than we all initially expected. So the burden of government rarely comes in under budget. Nowhere does this ring truer than the Federal Housing Administration program, also called FHA, and their mortgage insurance. See, it defies common sense FHA, according to administration's Federal accounting rules, that they actually make money, they say, for the government.

How do they do so? Well, it is only through the alchemy of government accounting can you transform a mortgage portfolio of figurative lead into gold and still remain true to the law.

So this free money comes courtesy of what? It comes courtesy of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. This is the Federal accounting program and the standard that we operate today.

Under FCRA's cooked accounting rules, the cost of Federal mortgage insurance is determined on the basis of a subsidy cost, including the risk that the borrowers default on a mortgage; and by using the Treasury rate, it does not account for market risk or overall systemic risk.

So, what does that mean? Unlike fair value accounting, which appropriately incorporates a premium for market risk, the current law fails to reflect the true cost to the American taxpayer of these FHA mortgage-backed insurance.

Let me give you an example. In the 2011 report, the nonpartisan CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, compared the cost of the current system of FHA of a single-family mortgage insurance on both the current law and what we have here, which is fair value basis.

What did CBO find? Well, CBO estimated that, under the current accounting, FHA would actually raise--raise--$4.4 billion for the government in 2012. Sounds pretty good. But if you actually dug into the numbers and use fair value basis--which, as I said before, is what the private sector would be forced to do--with an appropriate accounting of market risk--and of course, market risk is there--then what did CBO find? CBO then estimated that FHA would not gain $4.4 billion, but that FHA would actually lose $3.5 billion over the exact same period.

Why is this? Because CBO believes that fair value provides a fuller picture of a program's budgetary impact. So it now employs fair value basis accounting as a standard procedure for Federal loan programs and Federal loan guarantee programs such as FHA.

However, where is the problem? The problem is the Obama administration has strongly resisted the move to fair value accounting, and instead, they cling to the current program instead.

Let me give you another example. In 2010, President Obama effectively nationalized the Federal student lending program. The President then immediately spent the savings, if you will--remember, I talked about some of these before--on his signature health care law.

What is the problem? The problem is that there is a growing gap now between how much money was borrowed and backed by the U.S. taxpayer-- that means you and I--and how much money is actually being repaid by the graduates.

Let me give you some numbers. Based on the Department of Education data, there is a $99 billion gap between what has been borrowed and what has been paid back since only 2010. Remember, the President said these loans would actually make money for the Federal Government. Instead, the actual numbers are coming in that it is costing a $99 billion gap.

So, the bill before us today, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, fixes these shortcomings by requiring that market risk to be explicitly included in estimates of Federal credit programs. What will that do? That will bring Federal budget practice in line with what has long been standard practice in the private sector.

Specifically, it requires the executive branch and Congress to use fair value accounting in calculating the cost of Federal credit programs that consider not only the borrowing cost of the Federal Government, but also the cost of the market risk of the Federal Government in incurring or issuing any of these loans or loan guarantee programs.

And so, with mounting debt and a lackluster job growth, it is time to force the government to play by the same economic rules as every single American family and business has to. It is not fair to keep putting the American taxpayer on the hook.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and if I can catch him before he leaves, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I appreciate all of your comments. I won't touch on all of them, but I will touch on one or two.

In a sign of bipartisanship, I would like to extend to you, not knowing where this bill may end up in the future of things here in the House and the Senate, but extend to you an invitation to cosponsor with me what you said twice during your remarks that you seemed to be on the same page as I am and as I have been for a long time with regard to the GSEs and have fair value accounting applied to them and on budget.

I would extend that invitation to you.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Right.

So, as I say, my staff will talk to your staff on that, and thank you for your other comments.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter dated January 30 from the American Action Forum, which is an organization run by former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin--and I won't go into detail--but he basically wrote to express his complete support of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014, for the

very reasons that we have set forth here already.

Mr. Speaker, I am not seeing any other speakers at this time. I do see there are several other speakers on the other side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

American Action Forum,

January 30, 2012.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Ryan: I am writing to express my support for

H.R. 3581, ``The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of

2011,'' in particular those provisions that would incorporate

fair value accounting (FVA) into the federal budget process.

As you are well aware, a core objective in federal budgeting

is to accurately display the scale and timing of the

expenditure of taxpayer resources. Since sovereign tax and

borrowing powers should always be used judiciously, there is

a premium on doing so as accurately as possible.

In some cases this is straightforward. Consider, for

example, a discretionary appropriation. The scale of the

overall commitment is clear and in some cases it is

straightforward to budget the timing of the ultimate outlays

as well. Federal credit programs, however, present particular

difficulties. The timing of budgetary cash flows differs

dramatically between direct loans and federal loan

guarantees--even in cases when the ultimate economic impact

is identical. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA)

took an important step forward by equalizing the timing of

their budgetary treatment. Direct loans and loan guarantees

are both recorded in the budget during the year in which the

commitment is incurred, regardless of the duration and timing

of the federal assistance.

This was an important step in the right direction. However,

estimating the scale of required taxpayer resources remains

problematic. In particular, the ability of loan recipients to

make timely and complete repayments will be influenced by

future individual, household, and economy-wide economic

conditions. In the same way, the obligation of the federal

government to undertake guarantee payments will be driven by

similar forces.

While such future individual and economic conditions are

uncertain, reliable techniques exist to estimate the likely

size of the taxpayer obligation. Unfortunately, FCRA

needlessly restricts the analyses to credit risk--the

probability of failure to fully repay--while ignoring the

fact that the timing of those failures matters enormously. As

the past few years have starkly reminded every American, the

need to tax, borrow and otherwise deprive the private sector

of another dollar has far greater implications during the

depths of economic distress than during periods of robust

economic growth. Adoption of FVA would rectify this oversight

I recognize that significant reform to budget procedures

should not be undertaken lightly. However, my views are

informed by the fact that during my tenure as director, the

Congressional Budget Office undertook a number of studies of

the implications of accounting fully for economic risks in

the budgetary treatment of financial commitments like credit

programs. In example after example (pension guarantees;

deposit insurance; flood insurance; student loans; and

assistance for Chrysler and America West Airlines), it

becomes clear that an incomplete assessment of risks leads to

misleading budget presentations and may engender poor policy

decisions. FVA would be a significant step toward improving

this informational deficit.

My views are echoed by a wide array of budget experts. In

March 2010, CBO issued a new report recommending the use of

FVA for federal student loan programs on the grounds that

budget rules do ``not include the costs to taxpayers that

stem from certain risks involved in lending.'' In addition,

the Pew-Peterson Commission on Budget Reform proposed ``fair-

value accounting'' for credit programs and the President's

National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

advocated for reform of budget concepts that would more

accurately reflect costs.

In addition to these research views, there is a track

record of success. FVA has already been used successfully for

the budgetary treatment of the Temporary Asset Relief Program

of 2008 (TARP) and the federal assistance to Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac.

Last but not least, H.R. 3581 would also fix another

shortcoming of FCRA; namely that the administrative costs

associated with federal operations are not included in the

budget cost and must be provided for elsewhere. H.R. 3581

would require that administrative costs (called ``essential

preservation services'') to be accounted for up-front,

thereby balancing the playing field.

In sum, I believe that the Congress should adopt fair value

accounting and, in particular, pass H.R. 3581 in a timely

fashion. I would be happy to discuss any aspect of this issue

in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

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

Just two couple of points. Process is important. I guess you could be opposed to process--the gentleman from New Jersey referenced the NCAA. If there were no rules and all the players could just go out and do anything they wanted to, I guess we could say we could rack up a lot of points and scores and do very well.

But there is a reason and there is a method to the game, and that is why you do have rules. And that is actually why you do have the refs. Yeah, the coaches on both sides will complain, but the refs, at the end of the day, are the ones that say, hey, these are what the rules are, and let's play within the confines of them.

Now the second point I was going to make is, I understand this issue is pretty difficult and pretty complicated. The bill is not that long. But the gentleman from New Jersey has it completely backwards when he says, look, Mr. Garrett, you want to go by the CBO, don't you? You want to apply this to the CBO, and that is what your bill is going to do.

No, that is not what I said. I do agree with the CBO. The CBO already does this. It is the CBO that is calling for this. It was the past chairman, the past director of the CBO who says what I just entered into the Record--that we should be doing this. This is already done that way, I inform my colleague from New Jersey.

What we are saying is, if he and I agree that the CBO is, as he just said, this nonpartisan entity which has the right way of handling it, they are handling it the right way.

We are now simply saying, administration, you should be doing what the gentleman from New Jersey and I both say should be done here, what the CBO is saying should be done here, and apply it to OMB and how the administration does it.

So the gentleman has it completely reversed as to what the bill actually says.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, what I was just pointing out is you are saying that both sides' coaches were going to be yelling at the refs and they wanted their side, win or lose.

If you want to use your analogy, in a game there has to be rules, and we are saying that the rules that should apply are the rules that--you indicated the CBO is a nonpartisan entity, that they are doing it the right way, and we are saying, exactly.

The CBO is nonpartisan. They are calling for this type of application of the rules. And if we agree on that point, and if you dig into the bill and realize that we are saying it is not to make sure that CBO does it, but that the administration does it.

So reread the bill. You will understand what we are trying to do. And I think, at the end of the day, you and I may actually agree.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the chairman of the full committee, I want to go back to the gentleman from New Jersey who made the point as to which side of this issue is OMB and CBO on, and it is a process issue.

But it is important that, during an appearance before the House Budget Committee, where we considered this legislation, the director of the--and I will stress this point again--the nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, stated, ``We believe that the fair value method of accounting''--which is what is in this bill--``for Federal credit transaction programs provides a more comprehensive measure of a program's true cost.''

This is exactly why we bring this bill to the floor. I know the gentleman indicated that a partisan OMB takes a different view, but the nonpartisan CBO takes the view of this legislation, that we should make sure that there is complete transparency.

Then all the points that the gentleman makes, as far as making the decision as to how many students we should be able to have in these programs, how large is the housing program, and so on and so forth, then we can more accurately make those final determinations once we have the actual numbers accurately before us, and that is all this legislation really does.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who was able to get a budget out of the Budget Committee in record time the other night, the chairman of the Budget Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume

Just one point to that. I have sat through that committee now for a number of years, and since this is an issue that I have been somewhat following for that period of time, I knew that your statement saying that we haven't had the time and haven't spent

the time on hearings and what have you just did not ring true.

So I dug through it, and the fact of the matter is that we have actually had two hearings and two related markups on this legislation, and I think that gives us the information we need now to go forward.

Secondly, to the point that you make that the various programs are unique in their nature, absolutely, and that is why this legislation allows fair value accounting to be applied individually and evaluate each program accordingly.

We do all that in this legislation. It comes about through the multiple hearings and markups that we have had, and I think now is the time to go forward and give the American public the transparency that they are asking for.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to set the record straight, actually, we did have hearings on this, and we did have markup hearings on this back in June of 2011. We dug into it at that period of time. The legislation, essentially the same, just in a different cycle, is, in essence, what we have before us today, so we have had that opportunity.

But I will say this. If we see this legislation continue on the floor today and if we see this bill actually pass today, I extend to the gentleman and the members of the committee--or anyone on the other side of the aisle--that my door is open to try to make changes to it that you see appropriate, to make it have the flexibility that you think is not in the bill, which I think is in this bill, and so on and so forth. So I stand ready to continue to work with you on it. But I think that after the hearings we have had and the importance of this legislation, now is the time to move forward.

One last point on this, and I think the chairman of the committee made the point, but let me just reiterate this. At the end of the day, it does not add any additional costs to the American taxpayer. What this bill does is just make transparent the cost that is already there. I am trying to come up with a simple analogy, but fair value accounting is not necessarily one of the simplest things you can find an analogy for, but I guess it might be like this:

You would not go to the store and just go through with your credit card swiping it along, buying the things that you need or think that you need not knowing what they actually cost as you leave the store, just putting them on your bill, knowing that at the end of the day, at the end of the month, you may get a statement. Knowing that you are going to have to pay for that bill, you wouldn't go to the store and do that any more than you should right now with the American public, put them, by using the taxpayers' credit card for all these programs, worthwhile as they may, necessary as they may be, you shouldn't just be swiping that credit card not knowing exactly what the bottom line is, not knowing what the actual cost to the American taxpayer is.

That is all this bill does is just give us that information. And with that information in hand, then we can come together, Republican and Democrat alike, on those areas that we all agree on are necessary for this country and necessary that we expend funds on, with that information in hand, and do it in a more prudent, efficient, and effective manner than we have been in the past where we have done without the information.

With that, then, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.