Floor Statements

I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, as we have been hearing all night, earlier this year in a conversation between President Obama and the Russian President the microphone was left open inadvertently and the President pleaded for ``space'' and promised ``flexibility'' on the issue of missile defense after his reelection. And though this conversation was not intended for public consumption, the President's comments were clearly deliberate.

The President believes in a world without nuclear weapons. That would indeed be wonderful. He also apparently believes that unilateral reduction of our capabilities will be met by others following suit and reducing their arsenals if only the U.S. gives up its nuclear weapons first. That's not reality, Mr. Chairman.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has eliminated over 80 percent of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Yet instead of others following our lead, new nuclear weapon players, such as North Korea, have emerged. India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in the 1990s.

Following the ratification of the new START treaty with Russia, Moscow started the most extensive nuclear weapon modernization program since the end of the Cold War. President George W. Bush offered to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, believing there was a collective interest in defending against emerging threats from nations like Iran and North Korea. Such cooperation, however, has proven elusive, with Russia being less interested in cooperating against Iran than in degrading our missile defense capability.

Clearly, countries have their own motives and security interests that are not necessarily derived from the United States' actions. President Obama seems resolved to push forward regardless, even if that means compromising our own missile defense capabilities. This is reckless and dangerous in today's world. Iran is getting ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon and consistently threatens Israel, openly calling for that Nation's destruction. In the wake of Kim Jong Il's death, North Korea continues to move forward with its latest test firing of a long- range missile.

This amendment would ensure that without a treaty approved by the Senate or an authorization by an act of Congress, the President may not reduce our nuclear arsenal. Please join me in limiting the ``space'' and the ``flexibility'' that this President desires, further putting our Nation's security at risk.

I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I find it curious that it would be unwise to require that the Senate concur in a reduction of the nuclear weapons arsenal or that an act of Congress be approved prior to that occurring.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary or sesquicentennial of the Great Locomotive Chase.

At 6 a.m. on April 12, 1862, a group of Union Raiders under the leadership of James Andrews captured the General locomotive in Big Shanty, now Kennesaw, Georgia. As the Andrews Raiders made their move, the passengers and crew of the General ate breakfast at the Lacy Hotel. The Union spies planned to travel north to Chattanooga, Tennessee, in an effort to cause damage to the Western & Atlantic Railroad by destroying telegraph wires and railroad track along the route. This section of rail served as a major supply line for the Confederate forces.

During the breakfast stop, Confederate Conductor William Fuller saw the General depart northward without him, then he, Jeff Cain, and Anthony Murphy set off in pursuit of the locomotive on foot. Shortly the men borrowed a platform car and continued pursuit. Eventually the conductor and his men would board three separate steam locomotives due to the railroad tracks sabotaged by the Andrews Raiders. These locomotives included the Yonah, William R. Smith, and lastly the Texas.

The chase ended two miles north of Ringgold, Georgia, as the Union Raiders ran low on fuel leaving the General and heading for the woods. The Raiders were captured by Confederate forces and jailed. Eight of the Raiders including Andrews and Sergeant John Scott, were hanged. Nineteen of the Union participants were awarded the Medal of Honor, several posthumously. Eventually this adventure became known as the Great Locomotive Chase and has become the subject of legend including a Walt Disney movie during the 1950s.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 150th anniversary or sesquicentennial of the Great Locomotive Chase and to wish the citizens of Northwest Georgia an educational and productive commemorative event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Friday, April 6, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 10, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Friday, April 13, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 2012.

I want to commend Mr. Ryan for standing up for the future of our country and for his dedication to fundamental American principles.

Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, said last year that the greatest threat to our national security--the greatest threat to our national security--was our debt. Now, there are clear differences--you've heard them here today--about how we should address that debt. Americans have a choice to make, and it is a choice that will determine the future of our great country. By ignoring the drivers of our debt, by ignoring Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, the President's most recent budget proposal ensures a future of ever-increasing debt and doubt and

decline. In fact, before the Budget Committee, Mr. Chairman, we had earlier this spring Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who admitted of the administration that they don't ``have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours.''

Now there is real leadership.

The President's health care law, the current law of the land, cuts Medicare by more than $500 billion for more government programs. The President's health care law ends the Medicare guarantee and puts us on this red path over here, Mr. Chairman, increasing the amount of debt that gives the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pause to say that the greatest threat is our debt.

The President's health care law empowers the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively deny care to seniors. You've heard about it--15 unelected bureaucrats. None of them--none of them--can be actively practicing physicians. As a physician, I can tell you that gives me great pause.

You heard the gentleman from New Jersey down here, saying that, in their program, if a doctor says that you need cardiac surgery, you get it. Well, on the contrary, Mr. Chairman. In fact, if a doctor says you need cardiac surgery and if the board of unelected bureaucrats says you don't get it, guess what? You don't get it.

Then my friend from Maryland says, Oh, no. You can bring it to the floor of the House. You can bring it to Congress. You could have a review and vote on the floor of the House for your cardiac surgery.

Hardly, Mr. Chairman. It just isn't going to happen. The fact of the matter is this unelected board is charged with finding $500 billion in reductions in payments to Medicare physicians. Consequently, what will happen is that it will essentially deny care to seniors.

As a physician, I believe that the President's health care law threatens all of the principles that we hold dear: accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices. Every single principle of health care is violated by the President's health care law. It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Yet it's not just devastating to the future of our health. It's also devastating to the future of our economy, which is, again, what drives the chart. Where is the middle class, Mr. Chairman, on this chart? In the red. Where are the American Dreams of our kids and grandkids? In the red.

So we are committed to the full repeal of the President's health care law, and today we advance bipartisan solutions to improve and to strengthen Medicare. Where the President and Democrats fail to act here in Washington, we will lead.

Our plan has no changes for those in or near retirement. It allows choices, including the Medicare option, so that patients control their health decisions, not bureaucrats. When bureaucrats choose, patients lose. In the future, Americans, through a guaranteed system--read the bill, Mr. Chairman--will be able to select the health coverage that is right for them, not what Washington says they must have. Our solution is guaranteed, it's voluntary, and it's bipartisan--something our friends on the other side of the aisle simply cannot say.

Our plan also includes commonsense tax reform--closing loopholes, lowering rates, broadening the base, helping job creators. It's a system that is more fair and more simple and that allows us to compete in the world because a vibrant and robust, growing economy is necessary to get us back on the right track, and the right track is the green path here, Mr. Chairman, that gets us to a balanced budget and paying off our debt.

Now, we know that the Senate won't adopt our budget. Remember, they haven't done one in over 3 years. So the solution to the Senate and to the Presidential gridlock is with the American people. It's the people of this great country who will decide the direction that we take, not Washington. It's the people who will decide. We offer a positive budget, a positive plan, for both our health care and our economy. It's a path to prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, great communities are made up of wonderful people, and Atlanta is a great community.

Monica Kaufman has been an integral champion in making Atlanta a great community. For nearly 40 years, she's been an anchor on WSB TV in Atlanta. Now, sadly, she's retiring.

From her warm smile, to her anxiously anticipated hair style, to her passion and her warmth for our beloved metro Atlanta, we all love Monica Kaufman. What a great champion of goodwill, southern charm, and spirit she has been.

And for all the wonderful work she's given to our region and our State and our Nation, Monica, we love you, and we wish you Godspeed in your future activities and your future happiness.

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

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

Let me first begin by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman Ryan, who has put in an incredible amount of work, diligent work and commitment, in reforming our broken budget process. He and the entire committee staff have worked tirelessly to bring about more accountability and transparency to this process. I thank them for that. In fact, all Americans should thank them.

Budget reforms would also not be in the spotlight were it not for the work of a number of Members, but there's one Member I would like to acknowledge specifically, and that's our conference chairman, Jeb Hensarling, who has been steadfast for many years championing the Family Budget Protection Act of 2007 and the Spending Deficit and Debt Control Act of 2009 that focused on reforming our broken budget process.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that our number one priority in this body must be enacting policies that help our economy create jobs. It is clear that the President's policies have failed and they are making the economy worse. Because the President clearly can't run on his record, he has denigrated into the process of division and envy politics in this country. Terribly distressing.

House Republicans have a plan. We have got a jobs plan. It is a plan to put the American people back to work, and so we are delighted to be able to have an opportunity today to talk about one part of that plan.

The economy is growing way too slowly, as you well know. Not nearly enough jobs are being created, which is one of the reasons that we introduced H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which as my colleague said, could be titled the dynamic scoring act.

As you well know, the current model for the CBO determines the cost of legislative proposals by a static method that doesn't take into account macroeconomic factors like increasing revenue, reducing the deficit, paying down the debt, things that have economic consequences in our society.

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that major legislation considered by Congress has significant effects on economic growth, and we ought to be looking at that consequence. While current law requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide Congress with information on the fiscal impact of all legislation that is reported from the committee, there is no requirement for analysis of the economic impact. This bill remedies that issue by requiring the Congressional Budget Office to provide macroeconomic analysis for all bills that have a budgetary impact--this is the threshold--a budgetary impact of more than 0.25 percent of the gross domestic product. That equals, Mr. Chairman, about $39 billion in 2012.

This does not change the traditional CBO static scoring method at all. This analysis will be in addition to current law. It gives Members of Congress more information around which they are able to then make appropriate decisions.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that current policy is what has been utilized as a baseline for the administration, for the Simpson-Bowles Commission, for Domenici-Rivlin. All of those used current policy. This notion that we ought not be using current policy as a baseline is simply folly.

In 2011, only six bills met the 0.25 percent GDP threshold, which means that the CBO ought not be overworked by having this opportunity to provide greater information to Members of Congress.

Everybody knows that CBO scores in the past have been significantly inaccurate. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 is but one example. The CBO estimated that that would cost about $206 billion. In fact, it was $124 billion. Mr. Chairman, that is a huge difference.

Past CBO macroeconomic work has shown that Federal deficits and tax rates do, in fact, impact the economy. CBO itself has said:

``The reduction in Federal borrowing that would result from smaller deficits would induce greater national saving and investment and thereby increase output and income.''

Mr. Chairman, more information from CBO will highlight the need to act positively on fiscal policy here in Congress. And maybe as importantly, this bill will also encourage pro-growth policy ideas from all of our colleagues that will help get our economy back on track, create jobs, and protect hardworking taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our conference chairman.

It's curious to listen to my colleague talk about his concern about the debt when, in the last 4 years, the 4 years of this administration, we have the first 4 years in the history of this country where our debt has been greater than $1 trillion--over $5 trillion built up in debt by this administration.

I also want to point out to my friend from Maryland, who talks about the wonderful impact of the stimulus bill and how it has created all sorts of jobs and increased GDP, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, as our Members and colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office periodically updates the information that they provide as it relates to the estimates about what has occurred in the economy from policy here in Washington. The most recent update shows an 8 percent increase in the real GDP growth from the stimulus bill--now, that's down from 1.7 percent growth, and that is down from their estimate before--and a .4 percent reduction in the unemployment rate, which is down from a .8 percent reduction in the unemployment rate.

So, Mr. Chairman, if we wait another quarter or two, we're going to see that, in fact, the real information is out, and that is that the stimulus bill had no effect or a detrimental effect on the economy.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I'm a bit amused, Mr. Chairman, by the tack that the other side is taking on this as they talk about gaming the system, if you will, with this piece of legislation. I would simply call my colleague's attention to the bill itself.

The definition of macroeconomic impact analysis in the bill simply states:

Estimate of changes of economic output, employment, capital stock, tax revenue, an estimate of revenue feedback expected as a result of the enactment of a proposal and the critical assumptions for how they got there.

There isn't any qualitative assessment assigned to this. It's simply, give us more information, as the gentleman from California said.

So it's a bit perplexing why, again, our colleagues on the other side don't want that additional information with which to make decisions, high-quality decisions here in Washington.

With that, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it's kind of like ``Alice in Wonderland'' actually. I mean, if the gentleman truly wants to have the information that he is demanding, then he ought to be supporting the bill because what he's talking about is dynamism in the economy, and that's what we ought to be looking at, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we need the information to be able to provide us with the kind of data that will allow us to make the best decisions.

For example, this is a chart that shows the employment in this country, and the tax reductions of the last decade demonstrate that employment goes up and unemployment comes down. And then when the stimulus bill that the other side amazingly still wants to tout as the be all and the end all, when it's passed, what happens, Mr. Chairman? Employment plummets. Unemployment skyrockets.

So the gentleman can go back to the nineties, yes, but what we're living in right now is 2012, and the policies aren't working. So what we need to do is be able to provide, hopefully, Members of Congress with more information so they're able to make wiser decisions.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point out the CBO Director, indeed, did say the long-term effects of the stimulus are actually depressing, potentially depressing, on the economy. So that's why we need the big picture. That's why we need a dynamic scoring model, an opportunity to look at the macroeconomic impact of legislation that's considered in this Congress in a responsible way.

I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

What time remains, if I may ask?

Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman, as he well knows, that current law, section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of '74, requires that CBO produce cost estimates of legislation reported out of every committee except the Committee on Appropriations. To believe that a 1-year appropriations bill could have a CBO assessment of the economic impact 40 years out, which is their appropriate and usual window, it is just nonsensical. So current law simply states that CBO looks at committee action and not appropriations and for good reason.

I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I appreciate the gentleman talking about other pieces of legislation.

But what we're talking about here is more information, more information for our colleagues, Mr. Chairman; and for the life of me, I can't figure out why our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle simply, I guess, want to keep our colleagues in the dark here so that we can continue to make the kinds of decisions that we've been making. It's just astounding.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little perplexed by the arguments being used in opposition on the other side.

My friend from Vermont says that this assumes that there is a certain premise about tax cuts. Well, the bill doesn't even use the language ``tax cuts.'' It uses ``tax revenue.'' It could be a tax reduction. It could be a tax increase. Let's look. Let's find the information. Let's give our colleagues as much information as possible, which, again, is what my friend from Vermont says every family in this country does when they have a challenge. If they have a debt challenge, they get all of the information that they can. That's simply what we're asking here, which is to provide as much information as possible for Members of Congress to make wiser decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I'm so pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina and a member of the committee, Mr. Mulvaney.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I appreciate his perspective.

However, it's clear that every single revised report on the stimulus comes up and states that it is costing more. It's costing the economy more and that the jobs that are created, ``created,'' decrease every time there is a new estimate. And so we're approaching zero jobs saved or created. In a short time I suspect we'll be at jobs lost from the stimulus.

In fact, the CBO Director yesterday, in committee, said, The extra government spending from the Recovery Act of 2009, unless there are offsetting changes made that pay off the extra debt that was incurred, the economy will be worse off. So it's interesting to see our colleagues on the other side continue to grab onto what they think is a lifeline of the stimulus bill that with time looks worse and worse. And maybe, Mr. Chairman, if we had only had this piece of legislation at the time of the adoption of the stimulus bill, so-called stimulus bill, maybe somebody would have thought differently. Maybe they would have recognized that, in fact, that it was going to have the real effect that it has, which is to decrease the vitality of the economy.

Mr. Chairman, it's pretty doggone simple. This bill is pretty simple. You want more information or you want less information.

This is remarkable common sense. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it ought to be common ground upon which this House can stand. I urge my colleagues to adopt this piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, it is a little amusing, I guess, that our colleagues on the other side love to talk about the past. I'm not sure whether it's a desire for fantasy or misery, but talking about the past is interesting. But this amendment has absolutely nothing-- nothing--to do with the legislation that's being considered. We don't need to rehash the economic record of the last 10 years; we need to look forward. And that's what this bill does. It's a forward-looking piece of legislation.

And looking forward, as the CBO reported on Tuesday, if tax relief is allowed to expire at the end of this year, which seems to be what my colleagues on the other side are advocating, we would then have the largest tax increase in the history of our country. CBO says economic growth would be as much as 3 percent lower than it would be if that tax relief were extended.

So what we need is dynamic appropriate scoring, more information, more data for our colleagues to be able to have that kind of information so when they make decisions, they'll make, again, hopefully, wiser decisions.

This amendment truly makes no improvement whatsoever to our process, our budget process. I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is what professors of logic--now, I know that there's not a whole lot of logic around this town--but professors of logic would call a nullity. Adopting this amendment would not require CBO to prepare an analysis of bills reported from the Appropriations Committee, as my good friend from Virginia desires.

Section 407 of the Congressional Budget Act requires CBO to prepare a macroeconomic impact analysis of ``major bills or resolutions,'' which is the term that's defined in section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the bill uses cost estimates prepared by the CBO under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 402 does not apply to bills reported from the Appropriations Committee. So this amendment accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Even if the amendment were properly drafted, it would be meaningless to require a 40-year macroeconomic impact analysis for a 1-year appropriations bill. Even the largest appropriations bill, the Defense appropriations bill, is only about 3 percent of the gross domestic product in 1 year, or much less than 1 percent of the GDP over a 10- year period of time. So the macroeconomic impact of 1-year legislation oftentimes approaches zero and then can be changed with the next succeeding appropriations bills in years 2, 3, and 4.

So the amendment is drafted in such a way that it has no effect whatsoever. Even if it were properly drafted, it's a bad idea without providing any new meaningful information for Congress.

I urge defeat of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I'm not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I want to commend my colleague from Minnesota for recognizing the wisdom of the legislation and the importance of looking at the dynamism of the economy and effects that ought to be relayed to us from the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office's macroeconomic analysis oftentimes already includes interest rates if the effects are relevant; however, we believe that this amendment helps clarify that, and we have no objection to the adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I thank the gentlelady from Texas for offering this amendment. But I would suggest that the macroeconomic impact analysis that's required already by the legislation will analyze the effect of job growth and capital formation and economic growth. To add an additional criteria in the analysis is unnecessary, and truly encourages focus on the interests in particular locations as opposed to the general welfare.

This is one of those areas that is rightly worked out in committee, the discussion of these issues in committee. So I would suggest to the gentlelady from Texas that this is not the appropriate opportunity to try to add items to the bill that actually continue to confound the information that would be provided to Members and focus on dividing things as opposed to general information.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to return to the bill itself and to discuss for just a moment the notion that there is some type of bias within the piece of legislation itself. We've heard our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about that it's biasing positive information as it relates to tax cuts or tax reductions.

Again, I would urge my colleagues who are listening to this and will be considering this piece of legislation in short order to read the legislation. The legislation says nothing about whether or not the dynamic scoring, the flexible scoring that ought to be available for Members, that kind of information is going to look at tax reductions or tax increases, whether it's going to look at how that affects the overall vitality of the economy. In fact, again, what this does is to provide much greater information for our colleagues here to be making decisions.

And, as so many of my friends on our side of the aisle have testified to during this discussion on this piece of legislation, what's needed around here is more information. We now have an administration that has been marching to the Treasury to spend more and more and more and more and more money, plunging us into incredible debt--$1 trillion deficits for each of the 4 years of this current administration--$1 trillion, Mr. Chairman. We've never been there before. And it's clearly having an incredible dragging effect on the economy.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to have Members offer pieces of legislation and have the Congressional Budget Office be able to tell us, say look, if you're going to insist on continuing down this road of debt and doubt and despair, this is the consequence in the real economy; the consequence is that it will continue to have a drag on the economy, jobs will not be truly created? In spite of the guise from the administration that they talk about jobs being created or saved, jobs won't be created. There's a better way. There is a better way. And the American people know there's a better way.

And they know there's a better way that we can be informed. They know that more information for their Member of Congress will allow their Member of Congress to make wiser decisions. So all this bill is about, the Pro-Growth Budget Act, all it is about is an attempt to give you, to give me, to provide for every single Member of this body not biased information, not information that's gaming the system, information that allows for us to make wiser decisions.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful, Mr. Chairman, if during some of the major legislation of the past couple of years, wouldn't it have been wonderful to have had an outside entity, hopefully objective entity, be able to weigh in and say, goodness gracious, if you spend $1 trillion of money that we don't have, this is going to be the consequence in the economy; this is going to be one of the outcomes of it, which is you're going to increase the debt in this country; you're going to decrease the sense that businesses out there have any certainty in the economy; and, therefore, they're not going to be able to create the kind of jobs that all of us desire and all of us want?

That's the kind of information that we would have liked to have had. That's what we were saying at the time, and now it's beginning to play out, but it's playing out with incredible destruction in our communities across our great land, playing out in ways that makes it so that individuals are hurting and are harmed by the actions that were taken by the previous Congress and this administration.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have that information so that people could weigh the options?

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and adopt the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Am I to understand that the gentleman has withdrawn the amendment?

Has the gentleman yielded back?

And the gentleman is able to withdraw the amendment after he has yielded back?

I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for his amendment. But as we have had our staffs discuss, the amendment would truly mark a significant departure from CBO's historical mission of providing information to policymakers on fiscal and economic implications of a legislation.

It would impose a significant new requirement on CBO to calculate the taxpayer benefit or the cost of major legislation, something that, candidly, Mr. Chairman, the CBO lacks both the expertise and experience to be able to provide. So though it's commendable, I don't think it has a thing to do with the underlying bill.

I do believe there are some private sector solutions out there and look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois, given that he has agreed to withdraw his amendment in the future, as we move forward to, again, do something that I believe to be commendable, and that is to provide much more information for hardworking taxpayers as well.

And given that he has agreed to withdraw the amendment, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I want to commend him for his wonderful work throughout his congressional career on the fiscal responsibility appropriations process, having a more transparent and fiscally responsible governance and a more open budgeting process and more responsible budgeting process.

We both recognize the imperative of a greater dynamic analysis to the legislation that we have coming before us. What the appropriate threshold is, I think we're probably in the ballpark, but I'm happy to work with the gentleman as we move forward with this legislation to determine what that appropriate threshold is for legislation to be considered in a macroeconomic fashion from CBO.

And I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and also appreciate him working with me in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

The gentleman from Rhode Island says that this is a simple proposition, and in that, he's correct. It's simply terrible.

What he does with this amendment is to take away the entire underlying bill, and then he has the audacity to say that the bill, itself, does not provide any constructive information for Members.

So I guess what the Member is saying is that an estimate of changes to economic output for legislation that we bring forward that is significant and has a huge effect on the gross domestic product, I guess that's not consequential. I guess that's not in order to be considered. I guess that means that the gentleman doesn't think that that affects unemployment.

Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, employment, on page 4, line 24 of the legislation. I guess the gentleman thinks that that's not important, that the dynamic consequences of legislation that's brought forward here that has significant effect on GDP ought not be considered.

I guess the gentleman believes it is tax revenue, not tax cuts, as I have stated from this position all afternoon. Our friends on the other side seem to believe--in fact, the gentleman said--the bill would ``assume the inclusion of tax cuts.''

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that assumes any inclusion of tax cuts or of tax reductions or tax increases. All that this says is, with legislation that has a significant effect on our gross domestic product of .25 percent, which is about $40 billion, as has been talked about, that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office-- our arm of the Congress that is providing us with information and is able to give us the most information so that we can make the wisest decisions--ought to look at these things in a dynamic way and look at economic output, look at employment, look at tax revenues. Is it going to be positive or negative? Is it going to affect the economy positively or negatively? Would that we would

have done that over the past number of years, Mr. Chairman, maybe we would have made some better decisions.

So it is important for Members to appreciate that this amendment strikes the entire bill and inserts in its place something that I believe to be, for the bill, redundant but incredibly and remarkably burdensome to the Congressional Budget Office. The macroeconomic analysis required by the base bill already requires an analysis of the effect of major legislation on employment and on labor supply.

The entire point of the bill is that Congress ought to consider and have better information on the economic impact of major legislation that's being considered. The extension of this jobs analysis to every bill reported out of a House committee will generate an incredible amount of work and burden.

For example, Mr. Chairman, we oftentimes get criticized for naming post offices. We're going to assign somebody at the Congressional Budget Office to determine the jobs impact of renaming a post office. That's right. You talk about a redundant and worthless activity of the Federal Government. This would be decreasing the efficiency of an already remarkably inefficient process at a time when we're appropriately decreasing spending at the Federal level, which--yes, Mr. Chairman--also includes the Congressional Budget Office. They're above where they were in the midportion of the last decade, but we're beginning to get that spending under control. This bill would indiscriminately add to the workload, and it would provide, really, no new information to Members of Congress.

My friend from Rhode Island is correct. This is a simple amendment. It is simply a terrible amendment, and it would completely end the underlying piece of legislation.

So I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman uses the appropriate buzzwords: trickle-down, voodoo, partisanship, and all that. The fact of the matter is that none of that is in this bill. What is in this bill is an objective, commonsense, common ground attempt to provide greater information to Members of Congress, and his amendment strikes the entire underlying piece of legislation.

Again, at page 4, line 24, it calls on the CBO to address the issues of dynamism as it relates to macroeconomic factors when bills are coming to the floor--unemployment, unemployment, Mr. Chairman.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to adopt the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 502, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 501) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Clearly, the economy and jobs is the number one issue for the American people all across this land; and if you were to ask the folks who create jobs what is the greatest impediment to job creation, they would say it's uncertainty.

Businesses don't know what taxes are going to be. Job creators don't know what the rules and regulations are going to be. Employees and workers don't know if their jobs will be lost. Doctors don't know whether or not they're going to be able to see Medicare patients. Patients don't know whether or not they're going to be able to see their doctors.

Therefore, the House believes what the American people already know: that more certainty, greater certainty, is imperative if we're going to get this economy rolling again. Consequently, we, the House, passed a bill that provides that certainty.

Our bill provides for a 1-year extension of the payroll contribution to Social Security, offset so that Social Security resources are not depleted;

Our bill provides for a 13-month extension of Federal unemployment benefits with real reform, including job training and helping folks get GEDs and allowing drug screening by States for those receiving benefits should they so desire;

Our bill provides a 2-year extension of payments to doctors caring for seniors--for Medicare patients--so that our parents and our grandparents can continue to see their doctors.

So the House passed a 1-year extension of the payroll tax reduction and paid for it with reduced spending elsewhere. Yet the Senate, Mr. Speaker, wants 60 days and more uncertainty. The House passed a 13- month extension of Federal unemployment benefits. The Senate wants 60 days and more uncertainty. The House passed a 2-year continuation of funding for doctors to see Medicare patients. The Senate--that's right, Mr. Speaker--wants 60 days and more uncertainty.

Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate agree that we ought to extend these items. There

is no debate about that. The differences lie in whether or not we get our job done now or whether we punt the fulfilling of our responsibilities for another 2 months. The Senate's action is unworkable and unacceptable. Various organizations representing job creators have already said that a 2-month punt is unworkable and costly--therefore harming more job creation.

Now we're ready to sit down with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the Capitol to get a 1-year extension put in place before the end of this year. That's what you do when there are differences in the House and the Senate. Both sides have passed legislation, but we have disagreements. So now we ought to sit down, like Congresses have done for over 200 years, and work out those differences. We ought to do that today, not 2 months from now.

This resolution makes it clear that the House supports taking care of middle class families, seniors, and job creators. It makes it clear that the House stands ready and willing to work with the Senate to get this done. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support providing relief and certainty for middle class families and for seniors and for job creators, then they ought to support this resolution. There is bipartisan support for the proposals within this resolution, and there is bipartisan support for a 1-year extension.

I call on my colleagues to support this resolution and support the efforts under way to work out our differences with the Democrat-led Senate and to put in place a set of solutions that will create certainty for families, job creators, and seniors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to my friend from South Carolina that the best way to provide certainty for families and job creators and for seniors is to have a House-Senate conference committee work together before the end of the year.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a productive and excellent member of our conference, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a dear friend and a wonderful member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to our Republican chair of our conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my physician colleague from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a freshman Member from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, another physician colleague and a colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a physician colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that it was President Obama who said:

This Congress cannot and should not leave for vacation

until that--until they have made sure that that tax increase

doesn't happen. Let me repeat that: Congress should not and

cannot go on vacation before they have made sure that working

families aren't seeing their taxes go up by a thousand

dollars.

Mr. Speaker, in order for their taxes not to go up by $1,000, the length of time of the payroll tax reduction has to be 1 year, not 60 days.

I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague as to how many speakers he has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my physician colleague from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Harris).

I am pleased to yield a minute and a half to my colleague from the great State of Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 501.

Mr. Speaker, somebody once said that whether you say you can or you can't, you're right. The other side says they can't. The other side says we can't. We believe we can.

Mr. Speaker, we have two different versions of H.R. 3630. There is a House version and a Senate version. Everybody who knows about the United States Government knows that when you have two different versions you come together in a conference committee. You come to common ground, work out the differences, and move the bill back to both Chambers.

What are the differences?

In the House bill, we protect seniors' access to their doctors for 24 months. How about in the Senate bill? It's 2 months;

In the House bill, the Federal unemployment benefits extension goes for 13 months. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months;

As for the payroll tax cut extension, in the House bill, it's 12 months. In the Senate bill, it's 2 months;

As for the payroll tax cut for workers earning $50,000 a year, in the House bill, it's $1,000. In the Senate bill, it's $167.

There is a pay freeze for Members of Congress and Federal workers included in the House bill, not in the Senate bill. There is the ending of unemployment and food stamp benefits for millionaires in the House bill, not in the Senate bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is about two different bills. It's about certainty. It's about certainty for families and for job creators and for seniors. It's also about real jobs for real people. Our bill provides certainty and 20,000 jobs with the Keystone pipeline construction and another 120,000 new jobs in the supply chain for the pipeline: positive policy.

Why wait? Why wait, Mr. Speaker? Why not make a decision in the next few days on these tax and health care and unemployment extensions? What's the economic or the policy argument for putting this off for another 2 months? The truth is that there is none, and there are strong arguments against delay. We ought to be working on alleviating the uncertainty that that would bring about, not adding to it.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution and to move forward positively for families, for job creators, and for seniors.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has enacted a defense authorization bill every year for the last half-century, generally with broad bipartisan support. The reason for this broad support is simple: under Republican and Democratic leadership alike, we have recognized that support for our Nation's men and women in uniform should remain above the partisan fray, unencumbered by controversial policy debates that are only tangentially related to the mission of our Armed Forces.

Throughout my service in Congress, I have almost always supported this annual measure, which authorizes funding for a wide range of programs upon which our military depends, from salaries and benefits to military health care to critical equipment and readiness accounts. I thus find it deeply unfortunate that the House Republican leadership chose to use this year's bill as a vehicle for advancing ill-advised policies that seek to tie the President's hands in the war on terror and expand the military's role in the detention and disposition of terror suspects, at the expense of our civilian justice system and our civil liberties.

To be sure, the original House version of this bill, which I opposed, was much worse. It would not only have indefinitely extended the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was enacted in the wake of September 11, but would also have required suspects detained pursuant to that authorization to be prosecuted in military tribunals. My Republican colleagues' inexplicable insistence on forcing terror trials into military commissions instead of civilian courts flies in the face of the facts; our court system has a strong record of trying and convicting terrorism suspects, while the record of military commissions has been spotty at best. It is no wonder that the Obama Administration threatened to veto this bill--as any administration, Democrat or Republican, would almost certainly have done.

To their credit, our Democratic conferees succeeded in averting the worst aspects of the House bill in the conference report before us today. But they didn't go far enough. The measure would still require all foreign suspects detained in the war on terror to be kept in military custody, potentially disrupting critical anti-terrorism operations and muddying the waters of a process that should be crystal clear. As FBI Director Robert Mueller reiterated today, this provision would unnecessarily complicate interrogation and intelligence collection--the very capabilities that the provision's supporters claim they are trying to enhance. The conference report would also needlessly reaffirm our ability to detain terror suspects indefinitely, upholding an ambiguity in current law that should be resolved by the courts. And it would impose new consultation requirements that further restrain the discretion of the Attorney General to determine how to prosecute terror cases.

For these reasons, I intend to oppose the measure before us today, despite my strong support for the majority of its provisions. In the future, rather than using the defense authorization bill to advance their partisan agenda, I urge the Republican leadership to return to the past practice of leaving controversial policy debates for another time and place. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 929, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 837, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I thank my good friend for yielding and for taking time on this truly historic day, an opportunity for this Nation to begin--just begin--to move things in the right direction from a fiscal standpoint here in our great country.

The debate over the last, oh, 3 to 4 months has been very loud, sometimes it has been acrimonious. There are many people across this great country who just are confounded by the laborious nature with which it takes to make any changes here in Washington at all, and I share that frustration and share that anger and share that concern because we've been moving in the wrong direction for a long, long time as it relates to spending at the Federal level.

And so, as the gentleman from Arizona so appropriately said, what we need to do is decrease spending in the short term, we need to put some controls on spending in the mid term, but in the long term, as we have discovered and as the American people know so well, it's going to take structural, fundamental change of the way that Washington does business in order to get our fiscal house in order and get us on that path to a balanced budget and pay off our debt.

And the best way that I believe that that can occur is through a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And I don't say that lightly, understanding that there have been really very few times in which the Constitution has been amended. But I believe now in my fourth term that having recognized early on in my Congressional career that all of the inertia here in Washington is to spend money, everything, it all points towards spending money. The budget process that we go through, the folks through the Congressional Budget Office that try their best to do the work but the rules under which they determine whether or not something costs the Federal Government and this Nation something or whether it saves are so distorted that you can't get to the right answer. One cannot get to the right answer without structural change. And that's where the balanced budget amendment comes in.

Today, what we did in the Budget Control Act is not all that any of us would have liked. In fact, the numbers are relatively paltry when you look at them compared to how much money this government spends. But what is true about this act is that it will allow us in this House of Representatives and in the Senate right down the hallway to say to the American people, we hear you, we want this government to be held accountable, and the best way to do that is by passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

And so my friend from Arizona comes down this evening to highlight that wonderful change that we have the prospect for making in this Congress. This isn't 4 years down the road, 5 years down the road, this is in this Congress right now. And I know that if he could, he would urge the folks listening to this and Members of Congress to encourage all of their constituents and all the people across this land who so firmly believe, as I do, and as I know Mr. Franks does, that we need to put some controls, significant controls on how Washington spends money and that the balanced budget amendment is the best way to do that.

I know that what you would do, what he would do, is to urge all Members to communicate to their constituents and to every single American to call their Representatives, to call their United States Senators and say, some time, because of the bill that we just passed, some time between October 1 of this year and December 31 of this year, every single American will have the opportunity to communicate to their Representative and their United States State Senator the urging that they would to encourage them to support a balanced budget amendment.

That's when this vote is going to occur. It's not going to occur tomorrow or in the month of August or September. But what the bill provides is for the wonderful enthusiasm and the heartfelt patriotism and concern that the American people feel about this great country.

Now is the time to communicate to their Representatives, to support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If we are able to get this to happen, if we are able to make this become an amendment to the Constitution, frankly, the problem itself will begin to take care of itself because the rules will begin to say we cannot spend more than we take in. Just like every family in this country does and every business in this country must do, and that is to say we cannot spend more than we take in.

I just had to come down and commend my good friend from Arizona, in a time when there is a lot of calamity around this town, to take the time to say this must be highlighted on this day because this is the beginning of the next 61 days that the American people must act to let their Representatives know, support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I don't believe so, because I think if the American people knew that, they would be loudly protesting the lack of leadership and responsibility that the Senate has taken its job. That's the importance of this vote today, because the majority leader in the United States Senate cannot turn this vote away. This vote will happen. It will happen sometime between October 1 and December 31 of this year. Not next year or 2013 or 2014--this year.

We have the opportunity to be able to send to the States a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this calendar year, and I'm so proud of the work that the gentleman from Arizona has done, and our colleagues have done, to highlight this issue and ensure that it was included in this piece of legislation. And I look forward to a very positive vote come October, November, or December of this year. But it won't happen without the engagement of the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I'll tell you, my friend talks about the theater of the absurd. I'll tell you what's absurd: It's saying that they have a plan when they have no plan at all. That is what's absurd.

That we are here today dealing with this challenge ought not be a surprise to anybody. Decade after decade, Congress after Congress, President after President, they have borrowed too much, spent too much, and taxed too much, which is why our new majority--now just over 6 months in office--has put forward positive, substantive proposals to change the way that Washington does business. It's exactly what America is demanding.

Our challenges are huge, but solutions based upon principle is exactly what is needed, and hence this current bill, with short-term, midterm and long-term solutions. In the short term, responsible, appropriate spending reductions. In the midterm, limit and control Federal spending as a percent of gross domestic product. And in the long term, stop the madness. Force Washington to do what every single family in this country does and every single business in this country does, and that is to balance our budget.

President Obama has issued a veto threat, saying essentially that balancing the budget is an unrealistic policy goal. This is an administration that says it wants to do big things. Mr. President, is getting our debt and deficit under control too much to ask? Is that too big, Mr. President? What is unrealistic is to assume that we can spend at the levels that President Obama and congressional Democrats have done over the past few years, amass trillion-dollar annual deficits, and still have a vibrant economy. Now that's unrealistic. Putting America's fiscal house in order is not only realistic and achievable, it's imperative; it's imperative in order to get our economy moving again and create jobs.

This bill is a positive solution, a commonsense solution, an honest solution, and a bold solution. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and begin to travel on a path to prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, when I drove to the airport to come out here this week, I recognized that gasoline was at $3.86 a gallon in my district, and the last time we got to these levels was almost 2\1/2\, 3 years ago in the summer of 2008.

And we, at that time, came up with an all-of-the-above energy plan, a plan that recognizes that what we need to do is expand production in the United States. We need to concentrate on conservation. We need to incentivize new forms of energy. But first and foremost, in order to get us over the bridge, we need to make certain that we utilize responsibly resources that have been given to this great country by our Creator.

We need offshore exploration, onshore exploration, clean coal technology, oil shale, all of the things that the American people know will decrease not just the price of gasoline but will decrease our reliance on foreign oil and make this country safer and the world safer.

Let's get to work on an all-of-the-above energy plan on behalf of the American people.