Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago when the Republican conference was meeting to discuss changes to the rules of the House for the 112th Congress, I offered a commonsense proposal. In a…
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago when the Republican conference was meeting to discuss changes to the rules of the House for the 112th Congress, I offered a commonsense proposal. In a letter I sent to the chairman of the Rules Committee in January of 2011, I shared my belief that our priority in this Congress must be to enact legislation that will lead to job growth. I further stated that, given our priority of job creation, the new rules of the 112th Congress should require disclosure of the impact on job creation of any legislation being considered by the full House. That was 1 year ago, yet here we are today rehashing a seemingly age-old debate over trickle-down economics.
While we debate back and forth about whether H.R. 3582, the Pro- Growth Budgeting Act, is just another attempt to strengthen the case for passing large tax cuts while minimizing the actual costs, back home in my State, the State of Rhode Island, more than 60,000 men and women are without jobs. While we debate a bill with dim prospects of ever passing the Senate, more than 13 million Americans remain unemployed.
Just as many of you have seen in your own districts what I've seen firsthand in my district, the toll that this recession has taken on our families, our businesses, and our communities. My State was one of the first States in the Northeast to be hit by the recession, and like many other States, our recovery is slow; and with 10.8 percent unemployment, the toll continues. That's why, 1 year later, I'm still here expressing the same urgent need for Congress to understand, as we consider legislation, whether our legislative actions will result in job creation or job loss, and this is precisely what my amendment would do.
My amendment would strike the underlying language in H.R. 3582 and replace it with the text of the Job Score Act, which I introduced earlier in this session. This proposal would amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that, in addition to cost estimates, the Congressional Budget Office also prepare an estimate of the number of jobs which would be created, sustained, or lost by enactment of the legislation reported by the committee, including regional and State- level estimates.
A companion to the Job Score Act has been introduced into the Senate with bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats. A commonsense approach, there's no voodoo economics in this amendment. There's no controversial provisions requiring budget estimates that assume the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. My amendment would not require the inclusion of subjective and uncertain macroeconomic feedback in revenue estimates. This amendment goes beyond reviewing only major legislation and requires a jobs impact assessment for every bill that requires a formal CBO score.
My amendment is simple, straightforward, and should be a proposal that any Member who's serious about focusing on jobs can support.
Given these challenging economic times and their profound impact on the lives of men, women, and families throughout America, we need to ensure that the policies deliberated in Congress include an evaluation of the impact on job creation. This amendment puts politics, partisanship, and controversial economic policy aside.
Americans deserve to know whether the actions taken in Washington are likely to result in job creation or job loss. My legislation will help provide Congress with this vitally important assessment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The amendment that I've offered does substitute the existing bill, and that's because, in fact, it is a terrible bill. And that's why I proposed this amendment--to substitute it--to avoid what the bill that is on the floor does.
It avoids the partisanship, the controversial economic policy for which there is so much disagreement and which we've heard about for the last hour. There is no hidden agenda as to high tax cuts while trying to use as a baseline the Bush tax cuts. It puts aside all of the disagreements about which we've just heard for 1 hour, and it uses common sense.
I certainly suggest to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, that, in fact, the single most important analysis we should be doing on every single bill that the CBO does an analysis of is jobs. Will this bill create jobs if we pass it? Will it cause the loss of jobs? That is the most urgent responsibility we have in Congress right now. This bill simply says that the analysis that should be done on every bill that the CBO does is to ask: Will it create jobs? Will it cause the loss of jobs? We would do that statewide and regionally.
Why is that information valuable?
Because we should be singularly focused on job creation. We should avoid the kind of partisanship in disputes about trickle-down economics, voodoo economics; about the tax policy and about using the Bush tax cuts as the baseline. We need a commonsense approach that simply says that Members of Congress should have the information and should know does this create jobs or does it not before making a decision.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.